Praetorian uniforms

[Theodosius the Great]

Regarding the Neo-Attic helmet :

I think that at least officials were wearing them. I explain always this "problem" to the public with the fact that we are dressed for the battle, so "probably" the Attic was not really used, and we appear like usual legionaries, but "very well" equipped.

Good point, Luca.

I, too, believe Praetorians (at least their tribunes and prefects) wore them, but I also believe legionary tribunes and legates wore them as well.

Does anyone seriously think that Julius Caesar wore a Montefortino helmet ? Or Trajan a Gallic helmet ?

Both men were present on the battlefield but did not personally engage in battles, so I think they wore Neo-Attics as a mark of their rank, to be noticed by their men from a distance.

On monuments I know Emperors and officers are often shown bareheaded but this was surely artistic license taken so that the public could follow the narative of their Caesar on campaign. However, many examples of Emperors shown in military garb including the Attic helmet can be found on their coinage.

[drsrob]

Regarding the Neo-Attic helmet :

I, too, believe Praetorians (at least their tribunes and prefects) wore them, but I also believe legionary tribunes and legates wore them as well.

Does anyone seriously think that Julius Caesar wore a Montefortino helmet ? Or Trajan a Gallic helmet ?

Nobody does, that is the problem with discussions on officer's dress.
Regardless of whether this type of helmet existed or not, our image of the Roman officer is formed by sculptures showing men in Hellenistic armour. A reconstuction of an officer in Hellenistic armour is therefore bound to look the part much more than - for instance - a reconstruction using mail or scale.

[TR M VALERIVS]

I think that none can deny the existance of such helmets because artists can modify something, but not totally invent an helm.

I don't think the helmets pictured above are modified at all. Since the work was obviously done in Rome, he would have had actual PG helmets to use as models. The detail is extremely crisp and clear. Compare that to the legionary helmets, which are often shown as a bowl with an X on it, or a nondescript shape with a ring on top, devoid of decoration. It's the legionary and auxilia helmets the artist would not necessarily have had access to... there were 16,000 Praetorians right up the road.

while speaking with Raffaele D'Amato he said that usually the sculptors were not on the battle field so they were representing soldiers using some drawings made probably by some witnesses, but overall they were referring to something close to them, probably in Rome.

Exactly.

I have a friend (Julius/ JD Feigelson) who decided to make a Praetorian helm as seen on the monuments. He got really close:

He told me that the helmet wasn't particularly difficult to make for a qualified armorer (he's not), but being made of a soft metal (brass, bronze) that it's a lot more delicate than an iron helm (delicate = less-survivable). Let's also add that bronze was a prized commodity, even after the middle ages, whereas iron was not (prized = recycled).

I think the Italian PG reenactors look quite splendid. They do not, one must concede, look like what's on the monuments. Nor do the ones in the UK, for that matter. Rather, they look like what modern experts say the PG looked like... not like the evidence right in front of our eyes. (There's actually a term for that: scotoma, when preconceived notions overrule what the eye sees, or is otherwise obvious.) Thus far, I've yet to see any evidence of the PG in Rome (i.e., not on campaign) attired exclusively in segmentata and chainmaille. The single exception that comes to mind is the depiction in Nero's Golden House; his segmentata, however, seems to have the torso entirely of bronze, and he's wearing an antiquated, Corinthian-inspired helm. And I've yet to hear a plausable reason why these helmets "didn't exist" within the PG, or why they, of all the scenes depicted of Praetorians, would be the single item repeatedly fictionalized time and time again. It just doesn't add up.

Conversely, the possibility that they did exist, and that they looked pretty much like what's depicted (considering the extreme detail rendered on them compared to other troops' helmets, as well as the artists' access to them), seems a foregone conclusion.

M VALERIVS / Jim Whitley

[Luca]

Jim,

you are exposing any sort of problem here and much of them cannot be answered for 100% sure.

1. The modifications
Yes there are at least a couple of problems regarding the "art". The first is the presence of all thos little holes that your friend
exactly replicated. Well, can be considered only an "artistic detail"? Probably not, and probably these holes where made in order to
attach some metal fittings on the sculpture. If this is true how the metal fitting will change the impression of that helm? I think the result
can be exactly the same as visible on most remains of the gallic helmets in orichalcum or silver or gold or....
Second the cheeckpiece is believed to be so small (compared with the archeology) because the roman artist put always The Man in the center and small cheeckpiece were used to show the face of the man under the helmet. I can add a second theory about that: these helmets could be "just-parade" helmets, so this can explain why they are not so "protective".

I disagree about iron is stronger that bronze in terms of "survivabiliby", iron is stronger when used to fight, but it is much more
exposed to corrosion. Bronze doesn't suffer corrosion normally and it is not softer than iron, much harder and heavier this is why it is so fragile (hard means that it cannot "absorbe" hits as iron does).

Rather, they look like what modern experts say the PG looked like... not like the evidence right in front of our eyes.

For us this cannot be true. Yes we obviously read also what Dr. Rankov said, but mainly we formed our opinions directly on the evidences.
I wrote a small essay on the praetorian armours and in percentage there are many more segmentata/hamata/tunic praetorians on the sculptures than with a musculata. Anyway we have a musculata in our group and sometimes we use it, but rarely because it is a Deepeeka and I don't like it very much.

The single exception that comes to mind is the depiction in Nero's Golden House; his segmentata, however, seems to have the torso entirely of bronze, and he's wearing an antiquated, Corinthian-inspired helm.

Right. That's not a segmentata, but I think it is not a musculata. It is perfectly white with no drawings: I think it is a greek linothorax.
We know how much Nero loved greek culture and this greek-like "praetorian" confirms it also with an old attic-style helmet.

And I've yet to hear a plausable reason why these helmets "didn't exist" within the PG

Who is saying that? I have always heard that they "probably existed, but we never found on of them complete".
As a reenacter I can also add that my way to make this hobby is to replicate only "100% sure" items from archeology and considering
other sources as sculptures, mosaics, etc. just to fill up the gaps when it is required. Just to stay on the helmets, we have so many of them found that I just have to choose on of them in place to try to make a replica of a sculpture that is not able to "tell" me wich metal, which colors, which true proportions...

... but we are thinking to make our own Attic-style helmet.

[TR M VALERIVS]

Ave, Luca!

You bring up very good points re: iron vs bronze. Still, bronze has an unfortunate way of ending up recycled into something else later on (statues, cannon), for the very reason you state (it doesn't corrode as iron does).

I would love to read your essay someday (I am assuming it's probably written in Italian, which I have yet to master). If you have a chance, please post a link to it, or email me at [email protected] I am always looking for more research into this topic.

I did not mean to imply that the PG did not wear segmentata, and apologize if it sounded as such. I originally stated that I feel strongly that they had both armors, one for field campaigns and one for palace duty. I even doubt that every PG would have had the traditional armor... perhaps a few hundred (or even a few dozen?) sets could have been used interchangeably by those on duty, or when the occasion called for it. Roman men of the period (especially those selected for duty in the PG) seem to conform to a rather uniform physical appearance, so this would not have been difficult. But anyone wearing the traditional armor would certainly have had the helmet to match.

(I prefer the term "traditional" or "classical" over that of "parade", which would denote a certain flimsiness... the muscle cuirass served the Greeks very well in close combat for centuries.)

My friends and I looked very closely at Coh III and the other PG reenactors, Coh I, when we formed ours (not even a unit, really, just a few friends who do this as an alternate impression; we also do legionaries, gladiators, and LR). The Italian groups are immaculate in their appearance, and very believable. Your unit's lion in particular is spectacular! (Sadly, mine came with no paws, so I haven't done anything with it yet.) We just thought it would be nice to attempt the classical look, which seemes to us had to have existed, based on the amount of representational evidence left behind to attest to it. And if it did exist, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be represented, at least once, in the world's Roman reenactment community.

And I agree, the Deepeeka muscelata is quite awful. An extreme disappointment, since it takes just as much effort to make it this way as it would one that is closer to evidence, or at least more anatomically correct. We don't allow them either; ours are custom-built, mostly by Antoni Feldon. The cost of this impression makes it quite prohibitive compared to legionary impressions... yet another factor I suspect was analogous to the real PG.

I appreciate the opportunity to express these ideas, knowing that they do not conform to what is generally said of PG uniforms by contemporary experts. Just based on the representational evidence alone, I feel that the margin of doubt is definitely large enough to allow for both uniforms to be represented in the Roman reenacting community.

Very best wishs to you and Coh III Prae,

M VALERIVS / Jim Whitley

[TR M VALERIVS]

... but we are thinking to make our own Attic-style helmet.

oop, almost forgot: please keep us posted on this, either here or offline! We've done some experimenting as well, which we would be happy to share with you.

Ciao,

MV / jw

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

just some wild speculation, but could they have a parade dress for when they were in Rome and a battle dress for when they should be fighting?

[Luca]

Oh yes, also more than just two!

According to Flavius Josephus, it was not surprised to note that legionaries had two different equipments one for battle and one for parade, so I believe the same for praetorians.
In addition praetorians were also on duty in the cities, and many time is mentioned/represented they were dressed in a common way with very few elements of distinction from the civilians (balteus?) and (sometimes) hidden weapons under the paenula or the sagum.

[drsrob]

Josephus said that the soldiers paraded in full kit with covers removed and insignias mounted for the pay day.
That they donned parade armour is a modern conclusion which is, I feel, not warranted by the text. Rather, the soldiers had done most of their duties without armour and perhaps with covered shields. For the parade they prepared as for battle.

The notion of parade armour is a modern one. Only during the 19th century there grew a gap between parade and field-dress. Until that time they were officially identical. Of course on any campaign soldiers modified their dress and equipment to suit their tastes and aid their comfort.
No treasury however would suffer the expense of equipping an entire army with armour for parade only, nor would soldiers contemplate buying expensive objects that could only be used on official duty, whereas the basic equipment would do just as nicely.
A soldier might buy superior quality items for off duty wear, but besides clothing this would only include sidearms and belts. And indeed at several periods mention is made of expensive daggers and belts.

I don't believe in parade armour. I don't doubt that Praetorians had more expensive equipment than Legionnaries, but it must have been functional rather than fanciful. A surviving Montefortino helmet shows that the Urban cohorts continued to use this old pattern helmet during the early empire. We may assume that the praetorians did so too. The Monefortino type F from Cremona was perhaps the latest version of this model.
The one pannel on Traian's Column showing crested soldiers combines them praetorian standards. They are otherwise identical to the legionnary helmets. By this time the Praetorians had apparently switched to "Imperial Italic" helmets. My personal favourites are the type D and the Guttman Mouse Helmet. Both have extensive decorations which are remarkably similar considering that the two helmets are from quite different time periods.

The Attic helmets on the Louvre relief are in my opinion probably officer's or cavalry helmets. The so called Cavalry Parade Helmets conform pretty closely to the Attic style. The amount of decoration is also similar.

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

Getting back to the issue of whether or not the Praetorians wore armor while in the City or just civilian garb with concealed weapons...

What about this coin showing Gaius 'Caligula' addressing the Guard ? Clearly they are armed to the teeth with plumed helmets and rectangular shields.

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 the examples of bringing out the Guard in full armor to enhance spectacles like bringing Caratacus to Rome (Tacitus) or welcoming King Tiridates (Suetonius) defies that old custom. In the Republic, soldiers went unarmed and unarmored in Triumphal parades (which were the most spectacular events) but we see the Guard under Claudius and Nero being armed and armored to (possibly) enhance their own spectacles.

I think the Guards, or some of them, must have always been armored since the old theory of being clothed in civilian garb is largely based on lack of evidence. I don't see how the sources suggest that the two aforementioned occassions were exceptional insofar as the Guard being turned out in full armor. Sure, it would enhance a spectacle but why would this suggest that it was unusual practice for the Guard ?

BTW, even on this coin I think the Praetorians are weaing Attic helmets based on the way the necks curve inward against their lower skulls. Afaik, no other helmet type has such a neck guard.

~Theo

[Scipio Bristolus]

Could any 'old fashioned' look to the PGs equipment (at least when at important functions or within Rome) be a deliberate attempt to forge a link to a "more glorious" past / the republic / earlier more "legitimate" rulers?

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete, it's been a while, hasn't it ?

The strongest evidence I've read about that supports the view that the Praetorian Cohorts, along with the Urban Cohorts, wore more traditional equipment comes from a Montefortino helmet and a Praetorian tombstone from Aquileia.

First, the Montefortino helmet (now in the Vatican Museum) has an inscription naming the owner as Aurelius Victorinus of the Twelfth Urban Cohort. This is very interesting since, according to current scholarly thinking, the creation of the Urban Cohorts comes very late in the reign of Augustus. Also, these cohorts are thought to have been originally designated as 'Praetorian' and were simply renamed. This particular Montefortino helmet is mentioned by Peter Connolly and Boris Rankov.

Second, the tombstone from Aquileia belonging to a Praetorian shows two items of interest : an oval shield and a Montefortino helmet. This tombstone is mentioned by Rankov. I have not seen it for myself and cannot find it in the image database. But if he's right then this tombstone is very strong evidence favoring the said theory.

It's interesting that neither of these major pieces of evidence seems to have been mentioned in past discussions on this forum. :? At least, I've not been able to find any mention. Even Jenny Cline's otherwise thorough treatment of the Praetorians seems to omit them.

Could any 'old fashioned' look to the PGs equipment (at least when at important functions or within Rome) be a deliberate attempt to forge a link to a "more glorious" past / the republic / earlier more "legitimate" rulers?

The fact that the Praetorians were paid over three times as much as regular Legionaries by Nero's reign suggests that their appearance is very deliberate. But on another recent thread (about the second Triumvirate period) I argued that the Guards' 'archaic' appearance may have been due to sheer lack of non-use of their armor. For certain their equipment was not subjected to the rigors that their Legionary counterparts' were exposed to. So, most of the time their equipment must have been kept in storage for months and sometimes years on end until a special occassion required them to wear their full battle kit.

But maybe the answer is a combination of both. At first, their appearance simply lagged behind that of their Legionary contemporaries' but somewhere along the line someone decided that their old equipment met their fancy. OTOH, some of the cohorts must have looked more contemporary than others if the representational evidence (e.g. Caligula's coinage with Praetorians depicted) is to be believed. Some show the Guards carrying rectangular shields. This sounds like a very Roman practice to me. The Legions never looked homogenous to begin with as far as we can tell. Some variation in equipment seems to have been the norm. So why should we be surprised that we see variation in the Guards' appearance ?

~Theo

[Celtic505]

IMHO, I don't think the attic helms depicted in most of Roman art look like greek or hellenistic attic helms at all. I mean they certainly resemble them, but they have very consistent features and differences from greek attics. The main difference I noticed is the crest, it may not be such a big deal but the Attic Helms Ive seen in greek and hellenistic art have long horse hair crests that flow down the neck gaurd of the helm and many times down to the shoulders, whereas roman crests are very short in their length, as in they star at the top of the head and end on the top, they also tend to be depicted as feathers for the most part, and with a tapered look to them as well. Theres one odd depiction of a crest with two feathers in a V shape form and in between those rests two upright laurel leaf crowns, this whole crest combination of feathers and leafs rests on top of a cross shaped crest box. It may have been used on other cavalry type helmets but it seems unique to attic helmets on the trajanic frieze. Also look at the early cavalry helmets such as the weiler type, they clearly are influenced, based on, or descended from attic types, which must have existed in roman army and worn by cavalrymen or whoever, and was upgraded with better protection or made different for some aesthetic reason, I do not know. And finally, the designs on them clearly are roman in their imagery and symbols. This may just be the artist decorating them with roman symbols for decoration and pride, or perhaps art, but these are always shown with distinctly roman symbols and designs whereas regular helms worn by legions and auxila are not, although many tombstones of cavalrymen look as though they are wearing attic helmets, but they certainly represent weiler type helmets or other type of cavalry helm due to the embossed hair seen on some of them, and lack of crest. Interestingly they look exactly like these cavalry helms except the cheek pieces do not cover the ears, which is interesting. Also i feel like a more heroic, classical or even hellenistic look in greek art would be a corinthian helm or an apulo-corinthian, certainly this would have been copied if they were trying to look more classical or heroic? Maybe I am wrong, but it just seems like they are based on an actual helmet, quite common amongst officers and perhaps even some of the legionaries as well, if they could afford one, or perhaps they were hellenophiles like nero or hadrian. I could be completely wrong, and I welcome any opinions on my thoughts or evidence to the contrary, I'm always looking for the truth and nothing but. So please, correct me if I am wrong, But I feel I may be on the right track.

[PhilusEstilius]

Luca. I have been looking at your Group and I just have to ask where did you get your Phalerae the Lauersfort for they look very much like they are my work from some time back.

[PhilusEstilius]

Luca. The reason I ask about your Phalerae is that over the years I have done so many infact here is a link to the first set that I ever made, these were made for the late Douglas Arnold who was at one time Chairman of the Secvnda Avgvsta.

http://www.northumberland-computers.com ... roman1.jpg

Indeed if you look at the harness you can see just how I managed to fit them in by a higher horizontal strap and lifted the Jupiter Amon to give room for the whole center row of pieces.