Avete!<br>
Well, centurions and other officers could certainly afford extra parade armor. In fact, it really looks like conspicuous consumption is one of the big aspects of reaching that status. Pliny the Younger donated 40,000 sesterces to one of his clients who had just received a commission as a centurion, to cover his expenses for armor and gear. That's quite a wad of cash! And an officer would have his own baggage animals and carts, and slaves to take care of the stuff. So no problem there.<br>
<br>
Granted, it doesn't seem likely that many grunts would be hauling duplicate kit on campaign, but that doesn't mean that a few couldn't have some nicer bits that they'd leave in barracks.<br>
<br>
Does anyone have an accurate translation of the passage in Josephus that describes the pay-day parade outside Jerusalem? There is a reference to the soldiers removing the covers from their armor, or removing armor from the cases, something like that. I've seen a couple different versions with significantly different interpretations. Could be anything from a cover for the helmet to a full parade kit in a special box! Doesn't imply that ALL the soldiers had it, mind you!<br>
<br>
My own feelings about "parade armor" include some backlash inspired by authors that interpret ANY piece of metal armor as "ceremonial"! (Mostly earlier stuff, like Bronze Age.) Sure, there are pieces out there from various times or places that really don't seem to be designed for battle, but I just wish I knew more about the physics of the materials and weapons, etc.<br>
<br>
I also have a hard time with seeing any piece of armor described as "worthless" or "worse than useless" as protection. Huh? Worse than bare skin? Just seems odd, but like I said, the physics may be much more complicated and surprising than I know.<br>
<br>
So who's got that Josephus?<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
<br>
Matthew <p></p><i></i>
