Did the Romans have parade armour?

[Dan Howard]

I'm happy to dismiss the Renaissance paintings as artistic fantasy if you do the same thing with Roman musculata sculptures.

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

Does anyone else see the ridiculousness that this discussion has develoved into? It always amazes me that someone will throw around trajan's column or grave stele as potential sources of information and then cry artistic license when something contradicts their opinions... Maybe it's time to let this discussion go and die with whatever dignity it has left....

[Sean Manning]

The toupha did not have a nasal, cheekguards or neck protection.

So what? There are helmets ranging over the entire history of warfare that were worn in battle yet have none of those.

So what? Are less protective helmets than are generally available likely to be worn in conditions of danger (ie battle) by rulers? Seems unlikely to me. The toupha was worn in ceremonies when the face of the ruler was required to be visible, so conventional helmets with facial protection would be a very bad choice.

There is a famous kettle hat excavated on the grounds of the Louvre which almost certainly belonged to Charles VI and was for him to wear (it bears a gilt crown). Source. Many pieces of medieval art show kings wearing crowned helmets in battle. We know that a small amount of copper-alloy armour was used in battle in the 14th century. According to Thom Richardson's thesis, Edward III was issued a set of metal armour for his own use including three pallets ("caps") in 1374.

Cyrus the Younger rode into battle at Cunaxa with no helmet according to Persian custom. Many of the men about Alexander on the Alexander Mosaic wear Boeotian helmets even though they could afford any helmet they liked. Alexander wears an open-faced helmet decorated like a lionskin on the Alexander Sarcophagus. I think the evidence is pretty clear that ancient men of high birth often wore less armour than they could!

[Urselius]

The toupha did not have a nasal, cheekguards or neck protection.

So what? There are helmets ranging over the entire history of warfare that were worn in battle yet have none of those.

So what? Are less protective helmets than are generally available likely to be worn in conditions of danger (ie battle) by rulers? Seems unlikely to me. The toupha was worn in ceremonies when the face of the ruler was required to be visible, so conventional helmets with facial protection would be a very bad choice.

There is a famous kettle hat excavated on the grounds of the Louvre which almost certainly belonged to Charles VI and was for him to wear (it bears a gilt crown). Source. Many pieces of medieval art show kings wearing crowned helmets in battle. We know that a small amount of copper-alloy armour was used in battle in the 14th century. According to Thom Richardson's thesis, Edward III was issued a set of metal armour for his own use including three pallets ("caps") in 1374.

Cyrus the Younger rode into battle at Cunaxa with no helmet according to Persian custom. Many of the men about Alexander on the Alexander Mosaic wear Boeotian helmets even though they could afford any helmet they liked. Alexander wears an open-faced helmet decorated like a lionskin on the Alexander Sarcophagus. I think the evidence is pretty clear that ancient men of high birth often wore less armour than they could!

The crowned helmet of Charles VI was a very definite piece of parade armour - thanks for drawing it to my attention - it was made of very thin gilded copper - no chance whatsoever that it was designed to be used in battle. Charles is not a very good candidate as an example of the utility of wearing less protective armour than was generally available in battle as he was raving mad - he thought he was made of glass. Copper alloy, usually termed latten, was used in armour, but usually inconjuction with iron/steel. Gadlings on armoured gauntlets were often of latten. Even if whole armour elements of latten were used, they would have been much thicker than the Charles Vi helmet, which is really very, very, very, thin and fragile and made of essentially pure copper.

Crowned helmets were indeed worn in battle by kings. Henry V of England had a floret of the crown on his helmet hacked off at the Battle of Agincourt. It should be noted that the crown itself was attached to a very substantial great helm, itself probably worn over a bascinet (as was the fashion of wearing great helms at the time). Therefore Harry was taking no chances with his battlefield protection and was wearing the most protective headgear available.

The Boeotian helmet was much more protective than the Toupha, it had a deep flaring rim with downward folds affording considerable vertical and some lateral protection for the face. Alexander also wore some flimsy old armour taken from the supposed tomb of Achilles in battle, but he was wounded and did not wear it subsequently. There were many cultural pressures, and sheer perversity in some cases, working on the choice of armour of leaders in battle. However, I cannot imagine that old warhorses like Constantine the Great or Valentinian (his jewelled helmet is noted to have existed, when it is recorded as being lost by a servant on campaign) wearing anything but a functional and protective helmet in Battle.

[PhilusEstilius]

I think I am inclined to agree with Brandon over this topic and hope the moderators will excuse my French when I say it is now becoming Bloody ridiculous please some one put an end to it, for I have had to suffer this myself in the past here on RAT where it just became a ding dong between two of us.

[Vindex]

MODERATOR GREEN

We're looking into it, but need to get opinions.

The interim way is that you do not have to contribute to the thread or get drawn into the argument. Ignore it!

[PhilusEstilius]

Moi.
It becomes a sad situation where one would like to contribute to a topic and just to ignore what is a foolish problem is not everyones way of dealing with things, it becomes like putting ones head in the sand hoping it all goes away.

[Vindex]

MODERATOR GREEN

I understand that, Brian, but shutting the topic down entirely would not allow you to contribute either.

[Robert]

Personaly, as long as participants to a thread are civil to one another and the thread does stay on topic, there is no real need for moderator action IMHO. We have had that kind of threads before, the ones with all the numberjuggling for instance. Raged on, but also there, keep it civil and stay on board. So best let a thread like that die when one of the last remaining participants refuses to be drawn to posting another ding .. or would that be a Dong :evil:

[Urselius]

There is a central question raised by this and the muscle cuirass debate - do you want a cosy tea party where consensus reigns, whether or not the consensus is backed by either fact or reasoned argument, or do you want a forum where issues are argued through in a thorough manner?

Of course this particular thread has been deformed by a number of factors. The initial question asked presuposes that the concept of 'parade armour' exists, then when I raise the well nigh universally acknowledged apogee of parade armour in the 16th century the very existence of this as parade armour is challenged. You cannot have a concept of parade armour without at least some evidence of it having a basis in fact in some society, at some point in history. Also I am asked to "prove" all the points and examples I have used in my argument, when no such demand is made of anyone else. Of course I then become defensive and argue each point as it is challenged, anyone would.

Look through my posts and you will find that I have on no occasion made doctrinaire statements about the subjects under discussion - I have not said that Roman leather muscle cuirasses existed or that the Romans used parade armour. I have merely defended the possibilities that these articles may have existed.

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

I'm not suggesting that anyone is wrong or that the discussion isn't worth having. I just get the feeling reading through the posts that neither you nor Dan are going to give any ground on the subject, and then the discussion turns into a battle of wills about who will give up first.

I've watched and participated in numerous threads just like this and it always comes down to two camps. One camp screaming that without any physical evidence then there's no proof of existance, the other citing art, other cultures, and pure logical commen sense and nothing ever gets achieved.

It's the classic case of a unstoppable force meeting and immovable object. No one wins here, and the discussion goes nowhere.

I'm all for civili discourse when there is a clearly defined objective and a reasonable chance of conclusion, I just don't see that here.

[66kbm]

I'm almost scared to reply now...........but not that scared.......Now a lot has been said/typed and a lot to the contrary has been put forward to the same. OK....to calm it down a little. Roman soldiers of the early principate had to pay for their armour. Now someone comes along and says .......stuff Marius's reforms, we want you to carry a second set of armour. Full stop. Now where are these guys meant to carry this, as if they didn't have enough to carry already. One could argue that it was in the baggage train..................what..........several tons of unused armour just for parades, I don't think so.
The problem here is, I think, where and when and if any parade armour was worn. Moi mentioned earlier about clothing, it was reputed as the equivalent of Tunics. OK, fair comment, but Tunicas and Armour go together ie posh Tunic/ Posh Armour.
Maybe just posh Tunic with Ventrallis was Parade.
I really don't think the guys, let alone the Legion would have humped this extra toinnage around on campaigne, or in situ in a semi or permenant fortification.
Think "Grunt" people, not writings of those who never were.
Think 18/19 century when battle dress was the same as parade dress.
My opinion
Kevin

[Robert]

I think we have established through reasoning that the question around parade armour would in fact only be applicable to a small group of high ranking officers. If we could reach common ground on that pretence, we can look for evidence to that effect.
A case has been stated that parade armour has been worn by the top brass throughout the millenia. I sympathise with that reasoning. Whether or not this armor COULD be effective is the individual wearing it were directly involved in an incident where the armor would act as a lifepreserver, may not be all that relevant.
This relevancy is defined by the definition given to parade armour, which may be one of two:
A. Armour splendid enough to convay the status of the wearer during an official ceremony or parade.
B. An non-functional attire RESEMBLING armour, with the sole function of looking cool to the masses.

A ceremonial sword made by a competent blacksmith may not have been designed/intended as an offencive weapon for all it frills and gold, but it the blade is true and sharp (which is the only way a good blacksmith will want a blade to be), it will take your head off if swung in anger, just like it's less adorned counterpart carried by the rank and file. The same may be true for parade armour. And yes, I am aware that there are ceremonial swords which by their size are totaly unfunctional for anyone but André the Giant. Most however are just worn on a belt and of normal proportions :-)

[Sean Manning]

I think we have established through reasoning that the question around parade armour would in fact only be applicable to a small group of high ranking officers. If we could reach common ground on that pretence, we can look for evidence to that effect.

I can agree with that.

A case has been stated that parade armour has been worn by the top brass throughout the millenia. I sympathise with that reasoning. Whether or not this armor COULD be effective is the individual wearing it were directly involved in an incident where the armor would act as a lifepreserver, may not be all that relevant.
This relevancy is defined by the definition given to parade armour, which may be one of two:
A. Armour splendid enough to convay the status of the wearer during an official ceremony or parade.
B. An non-functional attire RESEMBLING armour, with the sole function of looking cool to the masses.

I agree that definitions are important, and I would be happy to use "armour whose decoration interfered with its effectiveness." A 16th century gilded and etched Greenwich harness was both a status symbol and an efficient tool for war and tournaments (I have seen a gilt and etched closed helm covered in marks from axes). So splendid armour could be functional.

This slides into a basic problem in archaeology, in that "reading" the cultural meaning of an object is difficult without texts and art to help. It is dangerous to say "they would have never used this for that."

[Dan Howard]

When I started this topic I provided the definiton that I was looking for, which is Robert's option B. I agree that there could be other definitions but they won't help me answer the questions I have.