Did they or didn\'t they ?

[D B Campbell]

Stephen Dando-Collins ... talks about Legio Ferrata Fidelas and mentions their centurion wearing something that fits the description of a seg.

If he really does call Legion VI Ferrata Fidelas, then that's one more black mark against Mr D-C.

Unlike other legions, they appear to have made it into the 3rd C without picking up any additional honorific titles!
(Admittedly, under Commodus, they appear to have called themselves VI Ferrata Fidelis Constans, as if to emphasize loyalty to that hated and paranoid emperor, so we'll make it a grey mark against Mr D-C.)

[Julius Verax]

So a Cunturion could have worn Seg , ok but would he always wear phalerae ?

When in uniform I never wore my campaign medals all the time only for certain parades and the like and I was a Staff Sgt so would this be the same as a Centurion I wonder ?

Julius .

[M. Demetrius]

But Julius, (mixing the modern with the ancient for metaphorical reasons) if your campaign ribbons and service awards would turn a bullet, you might have more inclination to wear them. Even though most phalerae were relatively thin (not a solid block of metal, that is) they would still add to the "I'm a bad dude, don't mess with me" look, and upgrade whatever armor somewhat, don't you think?

I'm not a centurio, nor do I ever expect to be, but I think they'd wear them into battle. Can't prove that, though.

[Julius Verax]

Thinking of it I guess your right , I reckon it would be Intimidating seeing a guy with all that on - I take your point .

Julius .

[Decimus Aurelius Varus]

Another reason could be that it was more a matter of dignity? In the modern military, you would never see an officer in anything less than his best uniform. Correct me if im wrong, but I would think that any officer would not wear segmentata because most were not directly on the frontline. I would think that most, except for some centurions would be at the rear shouting orders. I dont think anyone at the rear of the line (ie. the standard bearers and musicians). Keep this in mind I have no proof and this is only a speculation.

[Magnus]

Centurions were in the front ranks Paul. 8)

[Julius Verax]

Yeh I know , just kind of makes you a target when you stand out so much but I understand why he would wear it .


Julius .

[Crispvs]

It depends on the psychology involved. Wearing your medals in combat in an age before firearms might say to the opposition something like: 'Look at these awards and see the experience I have and the fighting skills to match - you are not as good as me!'

As to whether or not centuriones wore segmentata I agree that there is not enough evidence either way (in any case the funerary depictions of centuriones' armour of any type can be counted on one hand), but I do not subscibe to the idea that a centurio would have had armour for peacetime duties and different armour for use in the field. Rather, I think that a centurio's pay rate would have enabled him either keep usingbhis existing armour or purchase new armour which suited his own (experienced) opinion of what armour best suited his role and his preferences. Every type of armour has its own advantages and disadvantages. Which disadvantages you ignore or choose to live with are a matter or opinion and preference. Segentata is far better where it comes to protection from concussive force and stabs but it has fittings which need to be repaired or replaces reasonably frequently. Which of those two points carries greater weight? What would an experienced Roman soldier decide? We don't really know the answer to that but it could be that some armour types worked better under some conditions than others and this would have been no less true for centurio than his men. If the centurio was standing in the same front line as his men (or charging out from it for that matter) then I am sure that he would not have wished his armour to be inferior to that of his men. We know regular soldiers wore a variety of armour types - why should we assume it was different for centuriones?

Crispvs

[SOCL]

I don't think Dando-Collins can really be trusted at all, for all the reasons mentioned, especially by Tarbicus. Additionally, though, he has a tendency to take a theory and repeat it without the theory disclaimer, so it becomes this sort of parrot behavior, which I think plagues too much of the "popular history" of Rome so that you get things that were just theories becoming accepted fact without proof or verification. As Matt quoted, Mike Bishop states this quite clearly ("In such circumstances I see no problem in reconstructing a centurion in lorica seg so long as nobody starts saying 'this is how it was done' rather than 'this might have been how it was done' (because that is how factoids are born"). I guess I'm really only posting because I think this needs to be addressed on a larger scale within the reenacting community where theories become fact(oids). In any event, I'm also concerned that definitively saying "Yes, centurions might have worn segmentata" will eventually dissolve into "Centurions only wore segmentata" in the same sort of behavior people have taken to saying "Centurions only wore hamata", etc.

[Marcus Mummius]

We can conclude just the same thing as we concluded the last times we had this same discussion:

If we look at the sources we can say that centuriones wore either hamata or squamata/plumata and that there is no hard evidence to say that they never wore segmentata. Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especialy because the grave stèles depicting an armoured centurio are extremely rare.

Vale,