\'Roman Military Equipment\' vs. \'Greece and Rome at War\'

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

I have these two books... 'Roman Military Equipment' and 'Greece and Rome at War'. They have the same basic style and layout... but there's some conflicting information. My Greece and Rome at War edition is older than the other so maybe that accounts for the discrepancies. But I would love some comments on what I post from these books.

Lorica Segmentata:

- Roman Military Equipment: "... pieces are found on military sites from the Augustan period onwards..."
- Greece and Rome at War: "... have been found in contexts that can only be dated to the first half of the 1st century..."

What I derived from that is that previously (as stated in both books) the armor was thought to be used much later (2nd century) but that it's being found that they were used earlier. However, one says the 1st century AD (implied) while the other says 1st century BC (also implied, but could have meant the end of the Augustan period in the early 1st century AD).

So the problem I have is which book is more accurate? It's been said by another member of the forum that segmentata can be dated back to 9 BC but I haven't found anything in my two books that reference that. So was the armor used in the 1st BC and more widely used in the 1st AD, or are the two sources conflicting in the armors first known origin? I think the latter. So as asked above, which is more accurate or am I wrong in my "assumption"?


Scutum:

- Roman Military Equipment: "... the curved rectangular shield was already in use by 10BC..."
- Greece and Rome at War: "Early in the 1st Century AD the oval scutum was replaced by a shorter rectangular shield..."

This confuses me. The Greece and Rome at War book goes on to say that later the sides were cut flat and became what is known as the rectangular shield based on the Duros scutum. So I'm assuming the one referred to above in quotes is the Augustan style curved scutum.

So now both books conflict in the origin (one saying AD the other BC). Again as above, which is more accurate? If the Roman Military Equipment source is more correct, then the Augustan style must have been created well (or at least a few years) prior to 10BC if it was "already in use".


Sword:

- Roman Military Equipment: "... some time after the middle of the 1st century AD... "
- Greece and Rome at War: "Towards the end of the 1st century BC... and by the beginning of the 1st century AD..."

These quotes are in regard to the Mainz sword transition to the Pompeii style sword. One source says late BC to early AD, the other clearly mid AD some 50 years later. So I'm confused as to when the change was made. Which source is more accurate?


There's a few other discrepancies among the content of both books. I picked these up just days ago and have been hammering away at them. I'm trying to place time periods of the equipment, but then the conflicting sources start throwing me off. Of course the "correct" information (whichever source is correct, or neither) while appreciated is not going to destroy my understanding of these subjects. But if I'm to talk to other people about the information, I'd like to know what's correct.

So can I generally believe that the information in the Roman Military Equipment book or the Greece and Rome at War book to be more accurate or dependable? What have other readers determined to be the better source? Again taking into account that one is almost 10 years older than the other, is that probably why they sound distinctly different in dating?

Thanks guys for any info. I don't mean to nitpick, but again I want to be as informed as I can. For one source to say BC and the other AD I think that's pretty significant. If I were to try and talk to an outsider (someone newer to the information in these books than I... if such a horrid creature exists because I'm as uninformed as they get)... I want to know what I'm talking about.

[M. Demetrius]

Not to labor the points line by line, but if you take a step back and look at it, the statements you've listed as contrasting needn't be such a contrast. 9AD is, after all, early 1st Cent. And as has been discussed elsewhere, on many topics, the transition from one thing to another was more of a blend than we would think appropriate. A helmet that still works would be sold back to the Quartermaster sometimes when a soldier left service, or given to a son, or whatever.

The Pompeii was/is easier to make, and when Augustus needed to equip a bazillion soldiers for his fight for the Emperor's chair, he would logically have gone with the quicker-to-make, easier-to-forge swords. Segmentata is easier and less time-consuming to make than hamata, given the metal bands (which some say came from rolling mills much like ours today). Some have said that a set of hamata can be assembled in a day or so, while wire rings numbering about 15,000 (half solid, half riveted) can take more than a week for a full time armorer. (and I know a guy who works on his now and then who hasn't finished his hamata in two years...and it's all butted.) So which would you order up if you were equipping 40,000 soldiers?

Archeological claims are generally submitted basically on the basis of when the oldest found dates, of course. New finds may change the dates, as would be expected.

I seem to remember a Roman reenactment legion in either Colorado or Nevada...have you checked with them to see if you can work together? If so, that will settle some of the questions: always opt to fit in rather than be different is a good rule that many utilize in this hobby. No need for contention when it's not essential.

Now about those pink and yellow-striped tunics --

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

Not to labor the points line by line, but if you take a step back and look at it, the statements you've listed as contrasting needn't be such a contrast. 9AD is, after all, early 1st Cent. And as has been discussed elsewhere, on many topics, the transition from one thing to another was more of a blend than we would think appropriate. A helmet that still works would be sold back to the Quartermaster sometimes when a soldier left service, or given to a son, or whatever.

The Pompeii was/is easier to make, and when Augustus needed to equip a bazillion soldiers for his fight for the Emperor's chair, he would logically have gone with the quicker-to-make, easier-to-forge swords. Segmentata is easier and less time-consuming to make than hamata, given the metal bands (which some say came from rolling mills much like ours today). Some have said that a set of hamata can be assembled in a day or so, while wire rings numbering about 15,000 (half solid, half riveted) can take more than a week for a full time armorer. (and I know a guy who works on his now and then who hasn't finished his hamata in two years...and it's all butted.) So which would you order up if you were equipping 40,000 soldiers?

Yeah as I mentioned in another thread I most definitely agree it takes time to transition over to the other equipment. A difference of 20 years or so I thought was fairly significant. I agree with your thoughts on what would have been better and easier to do. I was just curious because the two sources spell out different origins. Not to say either is right or wrong... we just may never know. I just didn't know if one source was more accurate than the other.

Archeological claims are generally submitted basically on the basis of when the oldest found dates, of course. New finds may change the dates, as would be expected.

I think this is why the two books are different. One even claims a particular helmet was in use when everything found says otherwise. At the time it was written it may have been thought that way. Times change and new information comes forward as you said... so I think that's probably the reason for my confusion.

I seem to remember a Roman reenactment legion in either Colorado or Nevada...have you checked with them to see if you can work together? If so, that will settle some of the questions: always opt to fit in rather than be different is a good rule that many utilize in this hobby. No need for contention when it's not essential.

There is one group out here (a Yahoo based one) the only one I know of. I tried contacting them and received one response then nothing after the second reply. It's been almost two weeks now so maybe they're just busy. My next plan is to go to the local universities and see if I can dig up some information through them (either by corresponding with the ancient studies professors or by trudging through their libraries for books and text I haven't yet run into). I figure I can also go to one of the Denver museums and see what they have to offer too (as a very basic source of info). It's been years since I was last in the history museum so I have no idea what they have to offer.

All in all, I just want to accurate knowledge. I want to talk to other people and know what it is I'm saying rather than quoting outdated info or completely inaccurate/false information. I think that's reasonable.

[Graham Sumner]

Hello T.J.

Keep in mind that some of the material in 'Greece and Rome at War' was published in the early 1970's as a number of seperate groundbreaking books. In that time 'Roman Military Equipment' has been published in two editions the first of which appeared over ten years after Greece and Rome was first published as a single volume.

Graham.

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

Yeah the version I have is dated 1998... so that's a 10 year difference. I took that into account and mentioned it a few times in my previous posts. Just curious to know if the info from the later book is more accurate or just different.

[Matthew Amt]

On technical stuff, always go with Bishop and Coulston over Connolly. That's only for details that flatly contradict, mind you! With things like shields, much depends on interpretation of very un-solidly dated artwork: The Republican oval scutum *could* have hung on (particularly in Praetorian cohorts) to the mid-first century AD, and the "Augustan" style with straight top and bottom *could* have appeared as early as Marius. Or not!!

With some things, it's helpful to have finds from Britain, particularly those sites we know were the first Roman bases there. Since we find Pompeii gladius and scabbard parts, we know that sword was well in use by 43 AD. We also find Fulham and Mainz swords, so we know those were still in use at least to about mid-first century. Ditto for Corbridge and Kalkriese lorica parts.

Many nice finds are from rivers and the like, not from nicely stratified and dated archeological digs. So we can only date them stylistically, relating them to better-dated finds from elsewhere. Also beware of weird or slanted interpretations: in Armour of Imperial Rome, H. Russell Robinson discusses the finds of Imperial-Gallic helmet fragments from the Sheepen site, a destruction layer nicely dated to the revolt of Boudicca in 60 AD. He seemed to be stuck on the idea of some stodgy armorer refusing to let a helmet be issued for this emergency until all the little brass bosses were neatly in place. Well, DUH--Those helmets were DESTROYED in the revolt, but there is not a shred to suggest that they were CONSTRUCTED at that time! For all we know, they were 50 years old and still rusting on a shelf when the Britons burned the place down.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the raising of "a bazillion soldiers" as evidence for any particular items. Experienced smiths have said that a Mainz blade is really no more effort to make than a Pompeii. And armor wouldn't have been such a huge problem since many of the troops may not have had any. And most of those legions were not raised all at once, but in smaller batches over months or years. We know that equipment could be produced surprisingly quickly when required, and there is simply not a lot that I know of that suggests any significant changes in patterns of particular items during the civil wars of Antony and Octavian.

But back to the original question, those are both essential books, and you should definitely absorb as much as possible from both. But the first lesson to learn is that a lot of the "facts" are ambiguous, debatable, and controversial. If you get through a book and feel like you know less than you did before reading it, perfect!

Happy reading!

Matthew

PS: Hey, if you think this is bad, try researching the same sorts of topics for the Bronze Age! Yoiks...

[Gorgon]

This reminds me of a review of the latest edition of "The Roman Imperial Army of the first and second centuries A.D." by Graham Webster that I read on Bryn Mawr Classical Review. The revier showers praise on the book but states that Webster "continues to insist" that Lorica Segmentata was available earlier than the second half of the 1st century AD. We know for some time that there is evidence that the Lorica Segmentata was indeed beying used (although to what extent is difficult to gauge) earlier, at least since the first decade of the 1st century (if I remember correctly), not to mention the clear archaeological evidence of it's use in Britain in the 40's. The author of the review (an archaeologist no less if my memory doesn't trick me) just had to check "Roman Military Equipment" for that. So even in these days some scholars seem to ignore widely available and authoritative books on the subject and still assume that decades old takes on the subject are "definitive".

[D B Campbell]

This reminds me of a review of the latest edition of "The Roman Imperial Army of the first and second centuries A.D." by Graham Webster that I read on Bryn Mawr Classical Review. The reviewer ...

What on earth was Anthony Barrett doing reviewing a book about the Roman army?!

... showers praise on the book but states that Webster "continues to insist" that Lorica Segmentata was available earlier than the second half of the 1st century AD.

Webster's Roman Army has never been a favourite book of mine, and can be criticised for many things, but this one comment isn't one of them!

The author of the review (an archaeologist no less if my memory doesn't trick me)

He certainly seems to be: University of British Columbia web site

... just had to check "Roman Military Equipment" for that. So even in these days some scholars seem to ignore widely available and authoritative books on the subject and still assume that decades old takes on the subject are "definitive".

Sad, but true. :roll:

[Ross Cowan]

Hmmm. So a scholar gets the date of the introduction of lorica segmentata wrong and s/he's damned forever by the military equipment studies nit pickers. :roll: That's typical of RAT, where 'gear' is held in more esteem than real issues of importance concerning the Roman Army, such as organisation and tactics.

Re. RME and Greece and Rome at War, I'd take the latter. It's a classic and far more useful. In fact, I gave my copy of RME II away.

R!

[Gorgon]

Hmmm. So a scholar gets the date of the introduction of lorica segmentata wrong and s/he's damned forever by the military equipment studies nit pickers. :roll: That's typical of RAT, where 'gear' is held in more esteem than real issues of importance concerning the Roman Army, such as organisation and tactics.

Re. RME and Greece and Rome at War, I'd take the latter. It's a classic and far more useful. In fact, I gave my copy of RME II away.

R!

Huh...

If you're criticizing an author for "insisting" on something that has been shown to actually be correct, then you should be up to coment on those issues and present the available data with your own interpretation, don't you yhink? Not to mention that it's not like RME is some underdog, hard-to-find publication by some obscure rookie.If you're not up to date then don't comment on the issue as if you were, especially when you're criticising other author. It woudn't detract from the value of the review in any way. Plus, the book focus on archaeology to a great extent, so it is OBVIOUSLY relevant.

As for the "real issue", I don't even know how to comment on that. Equipment studies are of the same merit as any other studies. There's no "real" or "fake" issues here. One is not more important than the other. They're equaly important. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that those studies are less relevant in any way. Plus, organization and tactics are connected with equipment. Weapons and armour are relevant to understand why certain tactics and deployment criteria are used at any time period.

As for GaRaW beying aclassic, sure it is. However that doesn't mean it's definitive. No book is. That's why you have to check out as many books and articles as possible to get the more up to date info on an issue and as many discussions of those issues as possible. What does beying a classic has to do with anything??? According to your logic all research should stop as long the "classic work" has already been written...

[mcbishop]

This reminds me of a review of the latest edition of "The Roman Imperial Army of the first and second centuries A.D." by Graham Webster that I read on Bryn Mawr Classical Review. The revier showers praise on the book but states that Webster "continues to insist" that Lorica Segmentata was available earlier than the second half of the 1st century AD. We know for some time that there is evidence that the Lorica Segmentata was indeed beying used (although to what extent is difficult to gauge) earlier, at least since the first decade of the 1st century (if I remember correctly), not to mention the clear archaeological evidence of it's use in Britain in the 40's. The author of the review (an archaeologist no less if my memory doesn't trick me) just had to check "Roman Military Equipment" for that. So even in these days some scholars seem to ignore widely available and authoritative books on the subject and still assume that decades old takes on the subject are "definitive".

What he actually said was

He persists in his view, not widely shared, on the use of lorica segmentata in the army before Trajan (p. 122).

I think we have to be fair to Graham Webster here. The book reviewed is, so far as I know, just a reprint of his classic work that went through three editions, the last of which (ed.3, 1985) predated the discovery of lorica seg at Kalkriese (the breastplate appeared in JRMES 6, having been discussed at the 1994 ROMEC IX) and GW died in 2001. Nor had we had the various dramatic revelations about Newstead type armour at the time the review was written.

For my money (invested in all three editions when I could barely afford them), for all its faults (which are many), it remains the best overall account of the army of its stated period. Remember, Robinson worked with Webster on lorica seg long before he got his hands on the Corbridge stuff, thanks to Charles Daniels, and 'Fred', his first attempt at a stuffed soldier in lorica seg is still apparently in the educational department of the Grosvenor Museum in Chester!!

Give him his due. Webster was a key figure in the development of the study of lorica segmentata, as well as the army in general, and I would keep a Roman Imperial Army (probably 1st edition) in preference to anything by Connolly, Bishop, Coulston, and Cowan when chucking ballast out of a rapidly sinking balloon; good though any of them might be (in certain lights and with a favourable wind), they're not that good ;-) ) Sure, he could be as barmy as the next person, but which of us isn't from time to time?

Mike Bishop

[Gorgon]

Mr Bishop, I don't know if i misinterpreted your comment (I'm not an english native speaker) but when I made the comment "So even in these days some scholars seem to ignore widely available and authoritative books on the subject and still assume that decades old takes on the subject are "definitive"" I was refering to the reviewer, not Webster. I was just stating that the there is , I believe, solid eveidence for the existance of Lorica Segmentata before the second half of the 1st century AD, like Webster believed so. And in that sense I think that if the reviewer wanted to present that as negative point of Webster's book (at least that was the impression I recall) than he should have checked on up-to-date info on the issue that is widely available at this point. Ig the reviewer is not up-to-date with the data so that he can present he's own, grounded, interpretation of that data than he should abstain from critisizing Webster (again, it seemed like criticism at the time).

EDIT: I did misinterpret you. I missed te point that the information was not available at the time the review had been written. In that case the reviewer can't be at fault and his opinion was valid at the time he wrote said review. My bad! :oops:

[D B Campbell]

I missed the point that the information was not available at the time the review had been written. In that case the reviewer can't be at fault and his opinion was valid at the time he wrote said review. My bad! :oops:

I think we're all getting mixed up, here! In our rush to defend the late Graham Webster for his wisdom in realising that "lorica segmentata" was worn by Claudian troops, we have let Professor Anthony Barrett off the hook for sloppy reviewing.

Of course, there could be all sorts of reasons why the reviewer (writing in 1999, when Claudian-era "lorica segmentata" fittings were well-known) decided to disagree with Dr Webster. We shouldn't just assume incompetence ... although his web page does seem to suggest that Professor Barrett's archaeological expertise derives from work at The Lunt, Baginton, so he really ought to know about the (presumably Neronian -- definitely pre-Trajanic) "lorica segmentata" fittings from that site. :roll:

[Gorgon]

So those fittings were well known by 1999, the time of the review? Damn, you're right, at least I'm getting quite confused here! I should have checked the dates of the review and of the findings's reports before pulling stuff out of my ass :oops:

Ok, in that case I revert to my first opinion and comment. Seems strange for the reviewer to ignore that evidence without refering to it and not defend why he believes it doesn't point in the direction of Webster's thinking when the reviewer supposedly should have been aware of the data.

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

Wow... how ridiculous this has turned out to be. I make a post asking questions about two different books, due to a difference in stated facts in both books and I get slammed for it (nice of Ross to lower my forum Karma... very appreciated). :? All I asked was which book was more accurate and this is what happens. Fantastic. Guess I know not to ask anymore. I'll figure it out on my own from now on or PM those who ARE helpful.