Working on an triumvirate impression

[Matthew Amt]

I just checked Connolly's "The Roman Army" and he does indeed seem to show a Mainz carried by a Caesarian Legionary. But on page 35 he says that the 1860 French excavations at Alesia turned up no Roman swords - only a dagger and several pilum heads.

Ah, maybe it's the dagger I'm remembering. No, I wouldn't trust his reconstructions without some backing!

I only know of two Legionary tombstones, from Bishop and Coulston, that show the old oval scuta still being used. First there's that of Quintus Petilius Secundus which can be seen here : [url:p2n2ae2v]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,46/Itemid,94/[/url]

Hmm, isn't that his cloak, not a shield at all?

And that of Publius Flavoleius Cordus which can be found here : [url:p2n2ae2v]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,7/Itemid,94/[/url][/quote]

Okay, definitely a shield there, but I'd be inclined to call that more of an "auxiliary" oval shield. It's shorter than the Republican style, and not as "oblong".

(One thing that bugs me about theories on Praetorian gear, is that if the Praetorian Guard was first formed by Augustus, why would they be using things that date to *before* his reign? Hmmm....)

Praetorians have their origins in the Republic, IIRC. All late Republican generals had a Praetorian cohort to act as a personal bodyguard. Augustus simply appointed himself multiple cohorts and based them in certain cities. At least, that's my understanding.[/quote]

Right, I realize that. But weren't those early praetorian guards simply drawn from the ranks of the legionaries? Why would they have different equipment? Same with Augustus' cohorts--no real reason for them to look "archaic". Unless, of course, their gear wasn't considered archaic at all!

OR I could simply be committing the sin of inflicting logic and modern thinking on the ancients! Spank me!

Matthew

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Possibly no Mainz swirds were found, because the Romans won?
Ceasar did encourage his men to bling their equipment, as an incentive not to lose it in the first place?

[Theodosius the Great]

Ah! My mistake. You're right about both tombstones, Matt.
(Spank me :oops: :lol: )

The other tombstone is actually this one belonging to Caius Castricius Victor : http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

But neither one, as you said, resembles the old Republican scuta.
So, the only evidence seems to point to Praetorians.

Right, I realize that. But weren't those early praetorian guards simply drawn from the ranks of the legionaries? Why would they have different equipment?

Yes, AFAIK, Republican Praetorians were drawn from the ranks. Author Boris Rankov says that according to Appian, Octavian and Antony divided 8,000 veterans between them and formed them into cohorts. The latter took three cohorts to the East and issued a coin honoring his own Praetorians. Later at Actium, five of Octavian's cohorts fought against Antony. (Who knows if these five cohorts were equipped differently for naval combat ?)

Same with Augustus' cohorts--no real reason for them to look "archaic". Unless, of course, their gear wasn't considered archaic at all!

We know that Augustus' Praetorians, at least the three cohorts stationed in Rome, did not usually wear their armor. Presumably, their armor just sat in storage for years until they were taken out and worn on special occassions. So, their equipment did not suffer the wear and tear of their legionary counterparts'. I see no reason to suppose that equipment in good working order, no matter how old, was thought to need any "upgrades" or "modernization". Now I may be ascribing modern thinking to ancient practices ... :|

Possibly no Mainz swirds were found, because the Romans won?

No Roman swords, period. Mainz or otherwise. But yes, I'd say that's the likeliest explanation.
The idea of a Caesarian Legionary carrying a Mainz isn't an outrageous assumption, IMO. But it does seem to be just that - an assumption.

~Theo

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, that I would go with, which is what I was implying.

Mind you, I am hedging my bets on that one, which is why I have hispaniensis
to use too. As my present Mainz scabbard has a baldric, I plan on doing the 2 belt impression with the Hispaniensis, the one belt with the Mainz.

I don't say I am absolutely correct, but it is the best I can do.

[PhilusEstilius]

I would think that the best type of sword to go for around the Triumvirate period might well be the Ceasarian, for when we consider the Mainz this is going to thro' things up to about the mid 1st Century AD if the Fulham is any thing to go by. Then the question of the Preatorians having early republican Shields is covered by Connolly where I think he mentions these guys having a dress uniform as well as legionary gear for battle. Then for anyone who want's to wear a two belt arrangement it does look so much better on Hamata, with of course a Coolus style of Helmet or even a Monti'

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would think that the best type of sword to go for around the Triumvirate period might well be the Ceasarian, for when we consider the Mainz this is going to thro' things up to about the mid 1st Century AD if the Fulham is any thing to go by. Then the question of the Preatorians having early republican Shields is covered by Connolly where I think he mentions these guys having a dress uniform as well as legionary gear for battle. Then for anyone who want's to wear a two belt arrangement it does look so much better on Hamata, with of course a Coolus style of Helmet or even a Monti'

But what exactly is the Caesarian? A Hispaniensis by another name? Or a totally different sword? I always thought it was just a name for the hipaniensis used during
the period Caesar was active in, perhaps with a crossover to the Mainz creeping into the design? If that makes any sense...

[Ilario]

Hi, Kevin, we're workin' on the X Leg from almost an year; you can take a look on our website: http://www.decimalegio.it
Our work spreads from Punic wars 'til Caesarian era impressions.

Byron, Pierpaolo is...alive and kicking!
I was with him and the guys of II COH Praetoria this morning for a "rainy" training march near Bologna as we getting ready for Kalkriese 2009.

Optime valete,

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hi, Kevin, we're workin' on the X Leg from almost an year; you can take a look on our website: http://www.decimalegio.it
Our work spreads from Punic wars 'til Caesarian era impressions.

Byron, Pierpaolo is...alive and kicking!
I was with him and the guys of II COH Praetoria this morning for a "rainy" training march near Bologna as we getting ready for Kalkriese 2009.

Optime valete,

Send him my greetings!!

I am really jealous, we aren't going now.

I am slowly getting my Ceasarian impression together, so one day I will be able to join the ranks with you guys in Italy!!

[PhilusEstilius]

Byron I think you might be correct it may well have just got that name as you say, it is indeed I think a Hipaniensis which is few inchs longer than the normal Gladius around 27 or 28 inch blade.

[M. Demetrius]

I am slowly getting my Ceasarian impression together

That's great, GJC, if we can get a few of those in the group, we could have a Cesearian Section!
:roll: :lol:

[Magnus]

Oh my Dave, that was terrible lol. :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yep, Dave.....you can out do me in that department every time..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen:

Sir.

[jvrjenivs]

Indeed a triumvirate impression is awesome, and some day I also will be doing one (or two), but for now I'm afraid I've to focus on so many other great projects. This hobby never stops. Good luck on making this, anyway, as there is much less available for that time-frame, unfortunately.

[kevair464]

Any ideas on a good source for late republican 2nd half 1st century BC belt plates, buckles, frogs? or completed belts? Looking to make a dual belt set, no apron, if anyone has a good reliable source let me know!

[caiusbeerquitius]

2nd half 1st century BC belt plates, buckles, frogs?

As I wrote above, except for the buckles there seem to be none among the archaeological evidence. You can find different kinds of buckles in the Dangstetten publications:

G. Fingerlin, Dangstetten I: Katalog der Funde (Fundstellen 1 bis 603). Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgschichte von Baden-Württemberg 22. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart 1986.

G. Fingerlin, Dangstetten II: Katalog der Funde (Fundstellen 604 bis 1358). Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Baden-Württemberg 69. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart 1998.