Loricae

[Jona Lendering]

Not being a reeanactor, one of the things I learned at RAT was that the Roman soldiers were not uniformly dressed. Within the same unit, soldiers could be wearing a lorica segmentata and a lorica hamata. I have no reason not to believe those who explained it to me, but what its the evidence? Checking the reliefs of the Column of Trajan, I saw all soldiers wearing loricae segmentatae. The Column of Marcus Aurelius indeed shows two types of armor, but how do we know that these soldiers were of the same unit?

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

I'm not sure there is any evidence. I think it is more of a realisation that equipment was used and reused over a reasonably long period of time and so if there is no reason to withdraw otherwise effective equipment it may well not have been done.

Imperial propaganda on the other hand is likely to emphasise differences between Romans and enemies, or indeed auxiliaries, so that the message gets across. You mention Trajan's column but compare that to what the army built at Adamklissi - same army depicted in different ways.

[Jona Lendering]

Thanks; good points. Your reference to Adamklisi suddenly made me think of the Mainz pedestals, and well, look at that: two soldiers in a lorica segmentata and one that may be wearing a lorica hamata. Or is that not a hamata? It's hard to say.

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

Instead of starting a new thread...

Am I to understand that the armor was always issued to the soldier when they joined the Legion? Would there also be soldiers that may have served using armor given to them by brother, father, etc?

My past military experience tells me that units generally make an upgrade/change together. You'll have your stragglers that can't get the change done, or the unit will temporarily run out of supplies... but it's generally done fairly quickly. What would prevent the whole unit from not making the switch?

More importantly, when was the switch? If present day evidence shows both together, could it not be just a display of the armor and not necessarily making a point that they were used together? Example, we've taken photos in the military of the old uniform and new uniform together. A few hundred years from now someone might see that photo and think those two uniforms were used together when the photo was just for comparisons sake. Could that have happened with these two armors? Is there any solid evidence to suggest that one was used over the other during specific time periods?

Some of you guys have a lot of information and I like picking your brains. I stated in another thread that I wanted to get into reenactment so I'd want to know as much as I can to pick the right equipment.

[texascavtrooper]

Titus
I'm in the army and might shed some light on this. You are correct to some extent. The military now dose try and upgrade as units but that dosen't mean that a whole unit will get the upgrade all at one time. When we invaded Iraq in 2003 in my battlion we had guys in BDUs and some in DCUs. It all comes down to supplies. If we have the new stuff we use it if we don't have it we wait until it becomes available. I'm in Iraq right now and didn't get the newest flakvest until after we were here. I'm sure it was the same for the Romans. You have to remember that Roman soldiers had to pay for there equipment. So one might opted to get something cheaper then his buddy got. Also differant types of equipment were avilable in differant areas. I hope this helped. I'm no expert, just an old soldier with a few miles under his belt,(18 years worth of miles).
Bryan

[M. Demetrius]

Even now, some soldiers add particulars to their gear based on preference...or so I'm told. Maybe a better quality body armor vest, or a different kind of sheath knife/flashlight, etc.

[Matthew Amt]

There is not really anything that I know of to suggest that whole units "upgraded" to new equipment all at once. Mind you, evidence is scarce--there just aren't many archeological sites with a datable layer that turns up multiple finds of armor and weaponry. Even with spectacular exceptions such as Corbridge or Carnuntum, it's very hard to tell if some stuff is older than other bits, or if some items were reserved for one type of soldier, for example. There are helmets that have the names of multiple owners inscribed on them, so we can figure those were in use for quite a while. And it's pretty clear that the time span of helmet styles, for instance, overlapped quite a bit (e.g., Coolus and Imperial-Gallic).

However, you still get some of that in the modern military: US Marines in 1991 were still driving M-60 tanks while the Army was several mods into the M-1. Back in the 80's my college roommate trained with the M-1911 Colt .45, and one pistol he used was apparently a lot older than he was (it had a 3-digit serial number!). Things like that might have been more common in ancient times, when you didn't have to worry that the right kind of ammo wasn't going to be produced any more, or that some significantly more effective weapon was going to make yours obsolete.

Although we tend to think of the Roman army as very advanced and "modern" in many ways, we have to keep in mind that it evolved to that state from vastly different origins and traditions. We really need to be careful not to inflict modern thought processes on ancient practices.

Valete,

Matthew

[john m roberts]

When I was in the US Army in the late 60's the comand structure was positively anal retentive when it came to uniformity. Any departure from proper uniform or individual equipment could send them into an utter tizzy. But this is a very modern mindset. Just a hundred years earlier, in the American Civil War, every regiment might have a distinctive uniform, men packed pistols and bowie knives if they wanted to, and it was a lucky regiment that had a single type of musket in use throughout.

I think the Roman army was much like this. The Mainz, Fulham and Pompeii gladius designs all differed somewhat in shape, but they were all short, straight and double-edged, and that was what was important. If any single piece of equipment was standardized throughout a legion, it was probably the shield, since close formations like the testudo would be awkward (though not impossible) if the shields differed too much in size and shape.

Also, the farther soldiers are from higher command, the less compelled they feel to conform. When I was in Vietnam, men came in out of the bush whose appearance gave heart attacks to rear-echelon administrative officers. I recall one jeep driver who dropped his lieutenant off at a headquarters building at Long Binh, got out of his jeep and stretched. He was wearing boots, cut-off shorts and a flak jacket, nothing else. He carried a pump shotgun cut down to a pistol grip and about a foot of barrel. We bystanders were struck dumb with admiration. Nearby spit-shined officers turned purple, but nobody said a thing. Fragging was at its height in 1970.

We know that frontier legions could get fractious, too.

[A_Volpe]

Interesting

Garrisoned and inactive units were probably 'highly regulated' in terms of appearance; when you're only busy training and marching and looking primp and proper, yeah I can see officers getting all bent out of shape of not being 'uniform', and when the Supply office is just a few footsteps away, it's easy to get the newest and cleanest gear - but I can only imagine that year(s) deep into campaign and fighting, being short of consistent supplies and gear, units would have just had to contend with what they had, what they could get, and hope to get from back home.

there's that reference to the soldiers under Vitelius during the Year-Of-Four where Romans in Rome didn't 'recognize' these Legionaries as Roman, and considered them barbaric in appearance and were appalled.

There is also the Corbridge Lor. Seggie - several pieces of several suits all thrown into a box in various states of (dis)repair (several species of small furry animals gathered together in a cave and grooving with a pict??) - So what did the armor pieces that weren't in the box looking like? And once you start reparing/replacing parts - it's no longer uniform

In the same vein with ACW rifles - You have units in the first months issued 1855 pattern rifles, then you have pattern 1861, 1863...But the function of the gun never changes, it's still a muzzle-loading, cap-ignited, rifled-musket...Nothing really changed during the whole war other than a few bits and pieces. from the '55 model to the '61, they deleted the Maynard Tape Primer, but the Hammer didn't change, because removing the Maynard did not change the function of the hammer. So in that light, a Gladius is a Gladius...As long as it's double-edged and pointy...it works. I can easily see/agree with the idea that the 3 known patterns of Gladii overlapped for several years, and the patterns themselves really didn't change over the years, either. You have 3 examples of "Pompeii" pattern gladii from 30 years' difference, but we still categorize them as Pompeii because they share the same features.

[D B Campbell]

Checking the reliefs of the Column of Trajan, I saw all soldiers wearing loricae segmentatae.

Current wisdom holds that the state-sponsored monumental sculpture tended to generalise in order to make a point -- legionaries in "lorica segmentata", auxiliaries in mail, etc. -- whereas provincial sculpture can (probably) be trusted to represent a more realistic picture. Thus, the Adamklissi reliefs (and one of the Mainz pedestal bases) are usually cited as evidence that legionaries might wear mail (provided the relevant soldiers depicted there really are legionaries).

The argument is, of course, far more complex. If legionaries are sometimes depicted wearing mail, auxiliaries are never (as far as we know) depicted wearing "lorica segmentata" (although the ubiquity of LS fittings from so-called auxiliary forts has led some to argue that the garrison -- presumably auxiliary -- were wearing LS).

I guess all will be revealed when Jon Coulston releases his long-awaited book.

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

I guess all will be revealed when Jon Coulston releases his long-awaited book.

I'm pre-ordering that book this week, but I got the one from Bishop, "Roman Military Equipment" and it states that the Segmentata was first introduced in 47AD or at the earliest that's what we know to be the earliest. But the fact is known that Legionaries still wore the mail well into the 2nd century.

I think it goes back to the point that units were just slow at upgrading. When I think about it more, these units were often away for a year or more at a time, and the spread of new equipment would have been impossible. Especially if what they were using worked. I don't think in the initial era of both armors together, that there was any sort of classification differences between the two armors (as in Auxiliary and non). Maybe in the 2nd or 3rd century when the mail was more so phased out it could have been done that way. But initially and for at least a century, I can't see that being the case.

For the sake of argument and ease of reenacting I suppose a unit could split their Legionaries and Auxiliary up by those two armors if say depicting the 2nd century. They could argue the fact that it MAY have been done that way and for educational purposes explain that even some Legionaries used the mail even long after the release of the segmented armor.

[D B Campbell]

But the fact is known that Legionaries still wore the mail well into the 2nd century.

Be careful. Fact? Or supposition?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Duncan,

But the fact is known that Legionaries still wore the mail well into the 2nd century.

Be careful. Fact? Or supposition?

I believe we discussed this before. Mail was found at second-century legionary forts, I believe that the opposite was also true. And mail was also the armour during the 4th century onwards, so call it 'informed supposition' or a 'reasonable conclusion'. But I'm fairly sure that mail was in use throughout the Roman period.

[D B Campbell]

Mail was found at second-century legionary forts ...

Thank you for reminding me, Robert. I think you're referring to the distinctive mail breastplate closures which Garbsch wanted to interpret as cavalry parade armour -- according to Bishop & Coulston, p.139, some (two?) have been found with legionary inscriptions. (I have not seen these.)

Jona's original question mentioned different types of armour within a single unit -- I do not think we can demonstrate this as a fact, although (as you rightly say) we can suggest it as a probable supposition. I think the Marcus Column (mentioned by Jona) is probably the root source of this theory, where soldiers standing next to each other might be wearing mail, scale or segmental armour, in contrast to Trajan's Column, where there is some (false? oversimplified?) uniformity.

[Robert Vermaat]

I recall that a praetorian on the Adamklissi monument wears mail.. and that cavalry imho continued to wear mail.

An old discussion:
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=21923&hilit=mail+legionary&start=20">viewtopic.php?f=25&t=21923&hilit=mail+legionary&start=20<!-- l