Login

05-24-2004, 11:37 PM

On the cover of one of the books I've read lately, Lawrence Keppie's The Making of the Roman Army there is a picture of praetorian guardsmen, which I've seen before in numerous other places, which shows them looking much more like the "Holywood" impression of the Roman soldier. I've seen this picture on numerous souces. (e.g, it's on at least some editions of Osprey's elite series title on the Praetorians as well.) They seem to be wearing muscled curiasses and a helmet, which I haven't see yet a scrap of archeological evidence for, which has an overall "Attic" look to it, but with an (how shall I describe it?) up-turned tringular... (visor? reinforcement? I'm unsure of the right word.) Anyways, this bas-relief seems much more similar to the sort of "cheesy" Sunday-school-flannelgraph look which I'd come to whole-heartedly reject as accurate. Can anyone give some insight into from whence this bas-relief comes, when it was made and how accurate it might be for actual Praetorians? 
 
Aaron.

05-25-2004, 12:43 AM

There is archeological evidence for the Praetorian uniform that you describe. That picture you describe must certainly be the same one on the cover of a book named "The Praetorian Guard by Dr. Boris Rankov, Illustrated by Richard Hook. You can go to the link below and scan through the book by keywords for free for a limited number of clicks then it cuts you off. The book is reasonable from 9-12 dollars depending on it ifs new or in good used condition. Now the picture on the cover of this book I believe is decribed on page 19. The Praetorians were listening to a speech of Emperor Trajan. I believe I remember correctly 
 
www.amazon.com/gp/reader/...eader-link 
 
 
 
. on Page 19: 
"... modern army. Some types of equipment have always been regarded as characteristic of the Guard, in particular the so-called `Attic' helmet with bushy crest, and the oval shield. These appear in a famous relief now in the Louvre, Paris, which was ..." 
 
2. on Page 20: 
"... only a single brow-plate and a separate cheek-piece which might have come from Attic helmets amongst all the helmet equipment which he lists. Together with the evidence of Trajan's Column, this has long since led ..." 
 
 
5. on Page 23: 
"... (see Plate E). The Praetorians on the base of the Column of Antoninus Pius still wear segmental armour with Attic helmets, though they now carry the oval shield (which also replaces the scutum on private legionary monuments at about this time). ..." 
 
 
 
Now this further confirms it. This is an except from a website about Trajans column I note on this picture the crest seems to be made of feathers and is attached closely to the helmet not on a rod such as is usually seen. You are right. This is the image shown by Hollywood, and I am pleased to see that in this instance Hollywood got it right. They might have been off a few years because the uniforms changed over the 470 years of the Roman Empire, look how much the uniforms of our US military have changed in 200 years for example. Now these are the senior officers, roughly equvilant to the rank of Colonel in the US army, and four of them are shown chatting 
with each other instead of politely listening to the Emperor, could they have been plotting a coup? 
 
 
www.ukans.edu/history/ind...ment*.html 
 
"The only officers distinguished by their dress were the tribunes. Trajan is generally seen closely attended by two officers dressed like himself, perhaps Lucius Quietus and the prefect of the Praetorians. They wear bronze cuirasses fitting before and behind, and made to represent the muscles of the chest and body," 
 
One thing you have to remember, the few helmets that have survived 2000 years have large face guards. The artists that designed the statures took artistic license and made the face guard and other parts of the helmet smaller so as not to obscure the facial features. Blaine DIxon

Matthew Amt · 05-25-2004, 12:59 PM

Ave! 
 
The relief you mention is the Louvre relief. It looks Hollywoodish because it is the second-most-famous Roman illustration in the world and the movie makers have been copying it (or at least loosely interpreting it) forever. 
 
However------ 
 
IT SHOWS OFFICERS. The men in the front row at least are aristocrats such as tribunes. These MIGHT be Praetorian officers, but they might be any other equestrian or senator in military dress. That's why they are wearing the classic Hellenistic muscled cuirass. Now, the fellows in the back could be common Praetorian guardsmen, but of course we can't see anything of them except their helmets and shields, and pila sticking up. 
 
ALSO----This relief has been heavily restored in early modern times!! The heads of the 3 forground figures are replacements, pretty much copied from the rear-rankers. The entire middle third of the left-hand man is also a replacement, hence his really bogus belt and waist area. 
 
You're right that there is little or no archeological evidence for the muscled cuirass in the Imperial period. That's because there would have been relatively few of them, and they would all have been owned by upper-class men who would have been unlikely to lose them. They also would have been unlikely to follow the more barbaric frontier practice of tossing them into rivers or bogs as votive offerings--if they were going to sacrifice armor to a god, they'd find a traditional Roman-style temple and leave it there (from which place it would eventually be plundered or recycled long before it was found by modern archeologists). BUT there are numerous depictions of officers in traditional Hellenistic armor, so it's safe to assume that it did exist. If you want to believe that they also had something "more functional" for battle, fine, though the evidence for that is much scantier (if there is any at all). 
 
There is a lot more evidence for the Attic helmet, though. Besides the browplate mentioned, there are helmets such as the one from Thielenhofen, which is highly ornate and very much resembles an Attic helmet in outline. 
 
Where Hollywood usually goes wrong is translating all this polished, silvered, and gilded bronze into brown and black leather. They also insist on adding armguards or at least wrist bands of some sort. (Apparently this is some sort of unbreakable taboo--female actors must do at least one topless scene, but men are forbidden to expose their wrists.) The whole issue of the color of the clothing is a lot more open, though, so more room for interpretation there. 
 
One other thing you will proabably NEVER see in a movie is the usual Praetorian practice of wearing togas while on duty in Rome. Armor and spiffy plumes they certainly had, but "standard uniform" for them was civilian clothing, with swords and military caligae. 
 
When I hear from someone who really wants to equip himself as a tribune or legate (or a Praetorian), I cringe a little. With proper research and an experienced and reliable armorer, it is certainly possible to come up with a magnificent impression. But it is also VERY easy for the neophyte to slide into Hollywoodisms and ruin the whole look. 
 
I hope this helps! 
 
Vale, 
 
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX 
 
PS: Legio XX page on Officers, 
 
www.larp.com/legioxx/orgoff.html

05-25-2004, 01:26 PM

Thanks, that's actually very helpful. I actually wasn't doubting the muscled cuirass for the officers, so much as the helmet. (Ironic that I guess there's more archeological evidence for the latter, but your explanation of why makes perfect sense to me.) I've seen the reconstruction of the Thielenhofen on the "Triple-Crested Helmet" thread; it did look rather different to me, but maybe the picture isn't so clear on my screen or from my printer. The ornateness, it definitely has, though. 
 
Do we know what sort of armor non-officer Praetorians would wear when not in the city? 
 
Aaron

Jeroen Pelgrom · 05-25-2004, 02:22 PM

for those of you not familiar with the picture, this is the one weÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´re talking about: [url=http://www.livius.org/a/1/romanempire/praet_guard.jpg" target="top]praetorians[/url] 
 
Praetorians on guard went about clothed in a toga (white or beige), their weapons hided beneath it. By appearing unarmed in this fashion, the Guard followed the old custom of forbidding armed soldiery within the pomerium. 
 
i think Tacitius mentions this, but iÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´m not certain.. 
Professionals built the Titanic, amateurs built the ark 
 
 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pelgr003>pelgr003</A> at: 5/25/04 4:24 pm

05-25-2004, 07:40 PM

Just curius, Matthew, why would an officer need something "more functional" than a bronze cuirass? The Greeks seemed to find them pretty functional, and surely the aristocratic (or at least equestrian) officers didn't get often "get their hands dirty" in real combat, anyway. Or do I misunderstand the Romans' usual approach to upper-level combat leadership? I just assumed they wore mostly the same type of thing (even if perhaps they had a slightly less ornate version for combat) right into battle. After all, wouldn't they want the men to recognize their position so they would know to take orders from them? 
 
Aaron

Matthew Amt · 05-26-2004, 12:59 PM

Oh, I agree with you completely, Aaron, I think the traditional rig was more than adequate for an officer in the average battle. It's my understanding that even though their job was "traffic directing" than front-line leadership, they were still in range of missile weapons and sometimes ended up in or near the close action. And a properly made muscle cuirass was perfectly good protection and mobility for that sort of thing. Plus they presumably had body guards watching out for arrows and javelins, etc. And yes, recognition and simply looking terrific on the battlefield were very important factors. 
 
But there are some folks who feel more of a need to inflict modern ideas of "practicality" on the Romans, and while I usually squash them flat (as nicely as possible!), in this case there is simply not enough known to be certain. 
 
Current theory is that the battle gear worn by Praetorians was pretty much the same as what legionaries wore. Not much difference between them on Trajan's Column, at least. Probably a different slant on helmet styles (lots of guesswork, there!), for one, and more decoration and fancy work overall, but functionally not much different. 
 
One thing that has amused me for a while is the old Republican oval scutum, as shown in the Louvre relief. It is usually attributed to the Praetorians hanging on to old-fashioned or traditional equipment after the legions have evolved and upgraded. But by current wisdom, the big oval was out of use well before Augustus founded the Guard! So their using it is either a "revival" thing (and therefore even odder than we'd thought), or the big oval remained in general use much later than we think. History's Mysteries! 
 
Vale, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

Jeroen Pelgrom · 05-26-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:<hr>Current theory is that the battle gear worn by Praetorians was pretty much the same as what legionaries wore. Not much difference between them on Trajan's Column, at least<hr> 
 
Do you refer to [url=http://cheiron.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~trajan/images/hi/2.28.h.jpg" target="top]these praetorians[/url] on TrajanÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´s column? How do you tell if these are praetorians, they look just like legionairs? ------------------------------------------------------- 
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings -- they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Luca · 05-26-2004, 04:14 PM

Our group, www.cisalpina.net , is working on pretorians since 4 years.

Basically I agree with what I have read.
I want just to add to this discussion a famous head:

www.romanhideout.com/images/it/roma/ConstantineArch_Praetorian.asp

that shows a skorpion on the cheekpiece. Yes the helmet is the attic.

According to Tacitus (Hist I,38 ) seems that the only things that can help to distinguish between legionaries and pretorians were the signa (insignibus).
Following this we have decided to accept in our equipment regular "Robinson" helmets, such as the usual Gallic, Italic or Coolus.
Same decision for all the other equipment.
The only thing we have "not usual" is the lion fur, that we consider better for pretorians than wolves or bears. (our pics on the web have only the bear at the moment)

Crispvs · 05-26-2004, 08:04 PM

A few years ago, when otherwise unemployed, I went over a series of photographs of the entire spiral frieze of Trajan's column and copied every shield design which I could see shown on Roman shields. Unfortunately my drawings are currently around 12,000 miles from where I am sitting now so I cannot consult them. However, I do remember noting that only nine different blazons are shown on rectangular scuta, and of these, three are consistently shown in close proximity to the Praetorian standards and do not appear otherwise. Whatever the authenticity of the blazons themselves, it appears to me that the sculpters were probably trying to depict three Praetorian cohorts and all or parts of six legions, along with numerous auxiliary cohorts, distinguished primarily by shield blazons. 
 
Crispvs

***Praefectusclassis*** · 05-27-2004, 06:41 AM

Interestingly, [url=http://www.romanarmy.com/Content/Imagebase/imagebase-main.asp?Naaminvoer=&Inscrinvoer=&Litinvoer=&select1=Ala+Afrorum&Selectie=3&select2=Guard+infantryman&select3=Alexandria&select4=Portrait&Veranderdatum=&Submit=Submit" target="top]these[/url] 3rd century tombstones of Praetorian infantrymen are very similar to tombstones of ordinary legionaries. This was however undoubtedly caused by Severus' sacking of the guard and refilling it with the soldiers of his own Balkan armies. Greets 
 
Jasper

05-27-2004, 03:46 PM

Speaking of the Osprey book mentioned by Blaine, anyone have any input into how good it is? Is there a review of it somewhere in the archives. I noticed on the back cover in the Amazon "look inside" area that it shows some praetorians (I assume) in what, as best I could make out, looked pretty similar to regular legionaries (segmented armor, etc.) but with a large oval scutum. 
 
Aaron

05-27-2004, 06:50 PM

Here's some pictures which give a glimpse of a couple of our members with hypothetical Praetorian outfits, both campaign and ceremonial, the Praetorian officer is our interpretation of the relief in question, apart from his sword, which is a copy of one from Kalkriese. 
 
www.legiiavg.org.uk/images/rome07.jpg 
www.legiiavg.org.uk/images/rome04.jpg 
 
As you can see, we also have a copy of Vespasian!!

05-27-2004, 10:25 PM

Is that a leather muscled cuirass I see in the first one? I thought that was a Hollywood invention? 
 
The guy with the oval scutum; is he an officer? The bulk of the troops seem to have a rectangular one. 
 
Aaron

05-28-2004, 01:01 AM

I looked for the review of the Osprey Book about the Praetorians but cannot find it. The authors conclusion is that the red tunic was worn only by officers and the white tunic for private soldiers. As for the Attic Helmets he says that on the monuments the Attic helmets are ubiquitus but little archelogical evidence remains for them. His conclusion is that the depiction of the Attic helmet is an artistic convention. Now I just got the idea that there is the same problem with the media of ancient Roman times as we have with the media of Hollywood movies. The artists and their subjects looked back to the glorious past of Greece and the gods for their inspirations to depict their contemporary military heroes and the artists depiction of war and warriors might be relied on for accuracy just about the same as relying on Hollywood war movies of our time for the same accuracy 
 
Blaine DIxon

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me