Roman Full Plate Armor?

[Tarbicus]

For the purposes of the imperial roman army, the l.seg. armour itself was eventually phased out in favor of maille, after all, and never dominated as the empire-wide armour (as far as I know). So perhaps that was the problem all along?

Really? As far as I know the seg was still being worn in the 5th-C in Spain. (Or is it the 4th? Someone correct me if so) Newstead type, based on fairly recent finds.

As for not dominating, I understand it's the most prolifically found type of armour, and found in every corner of the Empire. And, if scale is a form of plate armour.... ummmm, technically.... that's well represented throughout the Empire.

[Endre Fodstad]

Scale =/ l.seg, as far as I know. Thus the distinction between Trajan's column and the Adamklissi images. But am I incorrect it assuming that l.seg. never was the dominant armour type empire-wode? That must be relatively recent survey work, in that case, especially for the later empire. mcbishop, come to the rescue!

[john m roberts]

Once again, linking the Versigny figure directly to the crupellarii mentioned once by Tacitus is very, very, very bad source treatment.

But if it isn't a cruppelarius, what in the world is it?

[Endre Fodstad]

If this isn't mickey mouse, what in the world is it?


Excavated at Uppåkra, Sweden. Layers dated to 10th century.


Malta, Austria, church painting, 14th century

(Scroll over to see why it probably isn't)

(lifted from http://donaldisme.dk/Uppakra.htm )



The attempt at humour here is that sometimes, we humans are a bit too eager to link a known image or idea to something that resembles our preconception of the idea. There is a neolithic Mickey somewhere as well, but I couldn't find it.

Your guess is as good as mine about the figure. Votive figure? A guy with a bucket on his head? Weird god statue? Failed casting?

[D B Campbell]

If this isn't mickey mouse, what in the world is it? ... we humans are a bit too eager to link a known image or idea to something that resembles our preconception of the idea.

You nearly had us there, Endre.
(1) The statuette looks like Mickey Mouse.
(2) But Mickey Mouse didn't exist back then.
(3) Ergo, the statuette can't be Mickey Mouse, so we are permitted to write it off as unintelligible.

In the case you are discussing, the argument runs like this:
(1) The statuette depicts a heavily armoured man, who doesn't look like the usual types of armoured men we are familiar with (legionary, auxiliary, etc.), but might be a known type that we are unfamiliar with (crupellarius).
(2) Tacitus was a contemporary observer, and describes the crupellarius as a particularly heavily armoured man.
(3) Ergo, our statuette might be a crupellarius, or it might not be a crupellarius, but we can't write it off as unintelligible.

[tsafa]

Did the Romans know how to temper steel?

Medieval armor was light because the steel was a thin 20 to 18 gage. The reason such thin armor could hold up is because it was heat treated. Did Romans have this technology? If not, they would have to use heavier gages and that would add a lot of weight. If you are forced to use heavier gages, the most effective thing is usually to wear less armor.

[Endre Fodstad]

First: Yes, they did know how to temper steel.

Ah, but you misunderstand, Campbell. I have you still! :wink: I attempted to humorously - as I wrote - to illustrate the eagerness our minds jump to link two ideas that resemble one another, even though it is - in Mickey's case - completely impossible that those two ideas can be contemporary, in response to the statement But if it isn't a crupellarius, what in the world is it? . I have to point out that your 1) argument in itself is flawed. The figure might depict a heavily armoured man. It might also depict something else. Your preconceptions are forcing it into looking like someone armoured in steel bands: you are equating an interpretation of the figure as a heavily armoured man with an assumption that the figure can, a priori , be regarded as a figure of a heavily armoured man. See below for my wife's take on it when I showed it to her and said it might depict an armoured man.

The arguments for why one should be careful with labeling the statue as a crupellarius have already been presented. It is one written source that we already know can be somewhat unreliable, and one statue.

Let's look at it again:

*We have Tacitus mention of unmanageable and clumsy (my interpretation) armoured gladiators amongst the Aedui, seemingly mentioned because they were a curious case.
*We have the figure, unearthed at Versigny, whose context is uncertain (at least to me; I have never read Picard's article and I cannot recall if Junkelmann lists spesific find site and dating). It is clearly unarmed (although I cannot see if anything should indicate that it might have had attached weapons) and has some bands here and there on the body and limbs and a head that might be interpreted as armour, although it is hardly what you'd call an attempt at realistic representation.

Now, I don't know if that is Versigny-on the Oisne or Versigny-on-the-Aisne, but neither are in the territories of the Aedui as we know of them as of 21 AD(or at least as I know them). Thus, the geographical link is slightly tenous. We thus have a single bronze statue (I can't find any dating of it, which complicates things further) that could represent a lot of things, linked to a single textual reference that doesn't actually describe in any detail.

There might be more evidence at large here. Pro the argument could be: Was it discovered as part of a set of bronze figures representing different gladiators? Was it found in a gladiatoral school or arena building? Was it found in a context that ties it closely to the events of AD21? Are there separate parts of weapons and/or shields associated with it? Con the argument could be: Is it dated much earlier or later than 21AD? Is it a loose find? Was it found in a collection of votive bronze figures or other figures of religious significanse?

The link - without further evidence being presented - it simply too tenous. It cannot be dismissed out of hand, but that applies to a great deal of wild theories. A danish bog body discovered at Haraldskær in 1835 was identified by a historian as "Queen Gunnhild", that according to folklore was murdered by King Harald Bluetooth in the late viking period. It took a mere ten years before this naive identification was dismissed by other historians (Gunnhild died, old, on the Orkneys, but the availability of sources in the 1800s was not what it is today and the original historian did not have those records), but in the meantime the body had been buried in St.Nikolai's church. Later, she has been de-interred and dated to 500 BC. But the ground theory was as good as the statue one is:

*They had the body, that seemed to have been murdered and hidden (of course, she had been sacrificed).
*They had the folklore, which indicated that Queen Gunnhild had been murdered in the area by King Harald.
*They had the historical record, which told of Queen Gunnhild and King Harald.

Que jump to conclusions based on little evidence but a perceived relationship. If we had not had single passage about Gunhild dying on the Orkneys in The Saga of Eirik's sons (as I recall it), it would not have been falsified until carbon dating. She is still called "Queen Gunnhild" (jokingly) It wouldn't be the first time folklore was used in archeology - sometimes successfully. A local legend in Mølledalen, Buskerud told of the "knight's jump" where according to history a knight and his horse had fallen to their deaths. Upon excavating the foot of the cliff, archaeologists found (also in the 1800s) fragments of a full suite of maille armour - a complete set of maille hose, a maille gorget, and part of an arm. They are dated to the early 15th century (Vike, Vegard. A metallographical analysis of ring mail material at the Oldsaksamlingen in Oslo. University of Oslo, 2000: http://folk.uio.no/vegardav/brynje/Ring ... Gustafsson ).pdf) - in this case, the local legend has a kernel of truth, some 400 years after the knight fell to his death or otherwise ended up in the rock pile.

"Queen Gunnhild" is often used in training modern archaeologists in scandinavia as an example of over-enthusiastic identification of unearthed artifacts with the historical record, and especially singular passages in the historical record. We don't do that anymore unless we are really sure and have lots of supporting evidence if we want to keep our academic reputation. While what you have right there and then might make it seem useful, we see the chain of argumentation in the Versigny case moving from speculation to certainty, musings to reconstruction, and eventually to circular argumentation. Of course it might be a crupellarius. It might equally well be a representation of a man with a holy bucket (as in "holy rusted metal, batman", not The Sacred Bucket) on his head. When I showed it to my wife recently and didn't mention anything except that it might be an armoured man, she said "it looks like someone wearing your vápntreiyu (textile armour, long-sleeved aketon).

Notice how (other) preconceptions already have crept in with the people who "reconstructed" the armour based on the statue:



Besides the l.seg. (in which they excuseably are basing themselves of others' interpretations) - that helmet is a high medieval barrel helmet with a bump fastened to the front. "It sort of looks like one, after all".

Why am I harping on about this? Because it is vitally important for the serious reenactor. I have been close to giving up on living history several times when people for the umpteenth time show up with something "reconstructed" from a single image, have incorporated flaws from that image that are absent in other images, and argue heatedly that it is "good". I've had people show up with equipment reconstructed from a single source of uncertain providence. Our rule of thumb for clothing is: at least three separate pictoral sources, preferably geographically not too separated, and preferably also based on archaeological finds and/or written sources, if these are available. That tends to mean half our tunics have arm patterns based on either the Kragelund or Moselund tunics (as they are widely available), but that is better than basing them on a single church illumination that the maker has misunderstood.

[D B Campbell]

Ah, but you misunderstand, Campbell. I have you still! :wink:

Not at all, Endre. I appreciated your humour, but it conceals an important misconception.

I have to point out that your 1) argument in itself is flawed. The figure might depict a heavily armoured man. It might also depict something else. ... you are equating an interpretation of the figure as a heavily armoured man with an assumption that the figure can, a priori , be regarded as a figure of a heavily armoured man.

Here we must part company, my friend, for I believe that it is entirely reasonable to assume that the figure depicts a heavily armoured man. You are seeking a level of assurance that (in my opinion) is entirely unreasonable in the field of archaeology. As archaeologists, we deal in "reasonable inference", and hardly ever in "certainty".

In short, if you do not believe that the figure is intended to represent a heavily-armoured man, the onus is upon you to provide an alternative interpretation. If your alternative interpretation is "We cannot possibly know what it represents", then we may as well all go home.

The arguments for why one should be careful with labeling the statue as a crupellarius have already been presented. It is one written source that we already know can be somewhat unreliable, and one statue.

Agreed. Which is why I wrote:
"Ergo, our statuette might be a crupellarius, or it might not be a crupellarius, but we can't write it off as unintelligible."
(Incidentally, I believe that the growing trend to label Tacitus as "somewhat unreliable" is exaggerated; I'd prefer to describe him as "usually reliable".)

... We thus have a single bronze statue (I can't find any dating of it, which complicates things further) that could represent a lot of things, linked to a single textual reference that doesn't actually describe in any detail.

We are still in agreement.
"Ergo, our statuette might be a crupellarius, or it might not be a crupellarius, but we can't write it off as unintelligible."

There might be more evidence at large here. Pro the argument could be: Was it discovered as part of a set of bronze figures representing different gladiators? Was it found in a gladiatoral school or arena building? Was it found in a context that ties it closely to the events of AD21? Are there separate parts of weapons and/or shields associated with it? Con the argument could be: Is it dated much earlier or later than 21AD? Is it a loose find? Was it found in a collection of votive bronze figures or other figures of religious significanse?

We are still in agreement. In an ideal world, this kind of supporting evidence would be the icing on the cake.
But the absence of such supporting evidence does not absolve us from the task of interpretation. "... we can't write it off as unintelligible."

The link - without further evidence being presented - it simply too tenous.

Tenuous, agreed. But too tenuous for serious consideration? (We're archaeologists, not nuclear physicists! )

It cannot be dismissed out of hand, but that applies to a great deal of wild theories. A danish bog body discovered at Haraldskær in 1835 was identified by a historian as "Queen Gunnhild", that according to folklore was murdered by King Harald Bluetooth in the late viking period.

Right there -- there's your logical fallacy. No self-respecting historical archaeologist should rely on folklore (in my humble opinion).

... we see the chain of argumentation in the Versigny case moving from speculation to certainty, musings to reconstruction, and eventually to circular argumentation. Of course it might be a crupellarius. It might equally well be a representation of a man with a holy bucket (as in "holy rusted metal, batman", not The Sacred Bucket) on his head.

Here we briefly part company again, my friend, for I don't accept that it is equally likely that it's a man with a holy bucket on his head. my position is this:
"... our statuette might be a crupellarius, or it might not be a crupellarius, but we can't write it off as unintelligible."
You can accuse me of moving from speculation to reconstruction, but not to certainty, and definitely not to circular argumentation. :wink:

Why am I harping on about this? Because it is vitally important for the serious reenactor. ... people for the umpteenth time show up with something "reconstructed" from a single image, have incorporated flaws from that image that are absent in other images, and argue heatedly that it is "good". I've had people show up with equipment reconstructed from a single source of uncertain providence.

This is experimental archaeology in action, ... provided people are willing to admit that, although the result may be success, it could equally be failure. Think of the long process of illuminating the workings of "lorica segmentata". With your hard-line approach, it would never have got off the ground!

Our rule of thumb for clothing is: at least three separate pictoral sources, preferably geographically not too separated, and preferably also based on archaeological finds and/or written sources, if these are available.

I appreciate your position, Endre. I really do. But it is only appropriate in a Living History context, where people expect some degree of probability. And entirely inappropriate in Experimental Archaeology, as we try to make sense of something peculiar.

Ah, but you misunderstand, Campbell. I have you still! :wink:

I don't think I do. And I don't think you do! :wink:

[Endre Fodstad]

I'll try to avoid a sea of quotations.

You are seeking a level of assurance that (in my opinion) is entirely unreasonable in the field of archaeology. As archaeologists, we deal in "reasonable inference", and hardly ever in "certainty".

That is certainly a position you are allowed to take. But I regard the position that it is a reasonable inference that the Versigny figure represents a heavily armoured man a rather weak one. What about the position that it represents a local deity? The 14th century mickey mouse figure is a representation of St. Cristopher. Some figures of Cernunnos (such as the one on the Gundestrup cauldron, on the top of my head) has the god wearing a striped suit. Some of the votive figures out there have quite blocky heads. We have far more votive religious figures than we have figures of gladiators, from both celto-roman and roman contexts, at least to my limited knowledge.

We cannot write either position off. But it is a far cry from declaring that the Versigny figure without doubt represents a heavily armoured man, which was my (erronous?) inference from the 1) position in your argument.

Right there -- there's your logical fallacy. No self-respecting historical archaeologist should rely on folklore (in my humble opinion).

The thorough analysis of the strict oral preservation patterns in folk tunes has repeatedly showed itself to be a useful tool in historical research. Not the one and all, but certainly, it can be, when analyzed and criticized, as useful a single reference in Tacitus - who himself is keen on repeating hearsay, I might add. In the Buskerud case, there was a direct link between folk tunes and a find, right where the tales and tunes reported that the knight had fallen. Folk tunes and tales do not have what is called independent value as a source (I'm not sure about the exact english citation), but they most certainly have a place as complementary sources if their use can be justified. In the Queen Gunnhild case it was not and was indeed later entirely falsified, in the Buskerud case it lead to a discovery that would never have been made without those folk traditions. Nobody is claiming that the excavated armour belongs to the (named) knight in the folk tune. That would be going too far, as it is not substantiated from other sources.

Think of the long process of illuminating the workings of "lorica segmentata". With your hard-line approach, it would never have got off the ground!

Now I might be wrong, but serious reconstructions (here I follow Bishop in considering the early interpretations from art by Alf and Coussin as rather primitive and not really helpful, with their marked aversion to archaeological finds of real material contra pictorial evidence) of the l.seg. started out with access to finds made now more than a hundred years ago in addition to better material. The Newstead, Zugmantel, Caruntum and Eining digs were made in the late 19th/early 20th century. They were not recognized as l.seg. pieces immediately, but the aforementioned authors knew of them. It was only after the Corbridge Hoard was excavated that real, serious attempts at reconstructions was made (as opposed to drawings off art and offhand referencing finds). By then a great deal of excavated pieces were available, and a large amount of pictorial evidence had been publizised - and speculated on by the authors mentioned above. That is a far cry and a far more solid basis than a single reference and a possibly unrelated figure.

I appreciate your position, Endre. I really do. But it is only appropriate in a Living History context, where people expect some degree of probability. And entirely inappropriate in Experimental Archaeology, as we try to make sense of something peculiar.

So you are saying that experimental archaeology does not need to rely on source interpretation beyond "this sort of looks what this guy may have described here"? :wink: I am not happy with my own experiments at constructing 13th/early 14th century aketons, and I have a sea of pictorial evidence, some surviving pieces less than 50 years removed in time, and written ordnances describing their construction.

Don't get me wrong. Everybody is free to speculate, and it is entirely reasonable to hypothetize that the Versigny figure representents a gladiator as mentioned by Tacitus. However, with the source situations as it is in this case, I think far more work (trying to find more supporting sources) is needed before one can make a statement that it is likely that it is. I note that all the literature on the subject is very careful in its statements. I don't want to turn archaeology into a natural science (although, to put it mildly, a great deal of natural science is as heavily dependent on subjective opinions as archaeology is) but equally I don't think it should devolve into some sort of weird game of source association.

[edit: I avoided a sea, but I see I ended up with a sizeable lake nonetheless]

[D B Campbell]

... it is entirely reasonable to hypothetize that the Versigny figure representents a gladiator as mentioned by Tacitus. However, with the source situations as it is in this case, I think far more work (trying to find more supporting sources) is needed before one can make a statement that it is likely that it is.

Ergo, our statuette might be a crupellarius, or it might not be a crupellarius, but we can't write it off as unintelligible.

I am glad that we finally agree.

(btw I am most impressed by your metallurgical knowledge.)

[Endre Fodstad]

I am glad that we finally agree.

Then we go wild and free! I hypothesize that 15ht century Danes knew of the skateboard, and felt that Jesus should have been riding one, especially when he was being harassed by naked people emerging from the mouth of Giant Killer Rabbits!


Vallensbæk church, c1450

(btw I am most impressed by your metallurgical knowledge.)

You shouldn't be. I'm just a novice. It is not my field of specialization.

[D B Campbell]

I hypothesize that 15ht century Danes knew of the skateboard, and felt that Jesus should have been riding one, especially when he was being harassed by naked people emerging from the mouth of Giant Killer Rabbits!

A lovely image, Endre. And well worth a laus, kudos, karma, or whatever they're called now.

But wait ... you have only half of the evidence. We still need a veiled allusion to Our Lord gliding along as if on a tiny horseless carriage. (And the skeleton of your carnivorous rabbit would be helpful.)

(btw I am most impressed by your metallurgical knowledge.)

You shouldn't be. I'm just a novice. It is not my field of specialization.

Well I am. :| Kudos, my friend, and thanks for an entertaining debate.

[Endre Fodstad]

We can always couple it to a misunderstanding of one of Guido de Vigevano's many flights of fancy, since there is no need to have anything but a tenous link between image and citation in this brave new paradigm:

http://www.histinst.rwth-aachen.de/ext/ ... _bastl.jpg

Thank you yourself! I have sent a PM.

[john m roberts]

Getting back to the plate armor thing: There is a matter that hasn't been addressed. When plate armor began to reappear in the European Middle Ages, knights had been wearing full mail for a couple of centuries. The coverage was sometimes so total that the whole body was covered with mail except for the palms of the hands, the soles of the feet, and an open strip for vision. So when plate began to show up, they were already accustomed to head-to-toe protection and they sought that from plate, too. The Romans never went in for full mail, either.

I'm with Matthew here. The Romans believed in armoring the places where a single blow or stab could kill a man and let the rest take its chances. They added supplemental pieces when there were a large number of limb wounds, such as the Dacian campaign. In fact, throughout history and across cultures, the vast majority of soldiers who wore armor had a cuirass of some kind to protect the torso and a helmet to protect the head, period. Assyrian warriors wore it, so do the soldiers fighting in that area now. Scale has given way to kevlar, but the mentality is the same. Protection where it's vital without compromising weight and mobility too much.

[SigniferOne]

The legionaries we see on the Adamklissi monument are as heavily armored as we ever see a legionary, with thigh-length armor, greaves, one of the best helmets ever designed, and a segmented manica. PLUS the big shield! I really don't think any of them were sweating over how to cover the last few gaps here and there. More likely they griped about all the weight on the march! So the issue of articulation of elbows and knees never arose.

Bottom line, I don't think it was a technical matter. There simply was not a perceived need for full plate armor.

Here's a question I have then: if they had the awareness of Sarmatian knights, of the Crupellarius equipped from head to toe, and there was no technical prohibition from outfitting a 12th century Medieval knight, but they didn't -- why do we assume it was because of a conceptual lack, and not something like tactical considerations?

Do we not tacitly assume that the knightly panoply was in some way intrinsically more desirable?