Ideas for Severan Legionary

[Paul Elliott]

Legionary of the Sixth Legion, Eboracum (c. 200AD)

Before I jump into creating this impression, I thought I’d sketch it out – saving money and time, and trying out ideas! I'm no artist, this painting just to give me (and you) an idea of what's on my mind! Any feedback on my combination of kit and clothing would be appreciated before I commit to it all... )

“In 208 Septimus Severus arrived in York and all three British legions are preparing to join him on his march into Caledonia. This legionary is part of the Eboracum garrison and will be part of the expedition.

Most of his equipment has been in use with the legion for over a century, but since Severus came into power (193) new belts have entered fashion. Other changes about to occur are the use of oval shields and more use of spears, heavy cavalry helms and light javelins. The newly created II Parthian legion has arrived with Severus and its men display all of these pieces of equipment, setting the fashion for the third century.”

This legionary wears an Imperial Italic G helmet, this example was found at Thielenhofen and is dated to 189AD or after. His lorica hamata has no doubling, and is worn over a padded subarmalis with attached leather pteruges. Additional protection is provided by iron greaves (of a style from the 3rd C; Kunzing), such protection became common for legionaries during the Dacian wars a century ago. His shield is the classic rectangular scutum which continues well into the 3rdC, although the more mobile legions of the 3rd C will soon trade them in for oval shields.

The chief weapon of the legionary is the spatha or longsword which became universal for soldiers thirty or so years ago. It is worn on the left side, and hangs from a wide baldric. This method of carriage is copied from the spatha found at Lyons dated to 197AD. The baldric is decorated with a bronze phalerae, based on a 3rdC find from Zugmantel. The grip is based on a 3rdC example from Buch. Before the sword is used, the legionary throws his pilum. This pilum is a light, socketed version. Its shank is 35cm long, similar to an example found at Saalburg from the 3rd C, or the 1st C Waddon Hill pilum. His pugio is based on crescent-pommel examples from Bar Hill (2nd C) and Kunzing (3rd C).

The pugio is attached to the belt by a leather strap looping over a fungiform bronze stud. A pair of these are used to fasten the belt together, as the belt-ends fold back through a central bronze belt-ring. There is no buckle.

The legionary wears trousers and long sleeved tunic, which became the fashion around the time of the Marcomannic Wars, thirty years ago. It is off-white and although not visible here, is decorated with black clavii. Beneath his greaves, the soldier wears woollen leg wraps, a fashion introduced from contact with northern barbarians during the century, they provide excellent padding for the metal greaves.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Not too bad, but I would maybe not have the pugio so low. As has been stated by so many on this forum, the majority of depictions
of pugios show them quite tight to the belt. I would need to look for late second depictions though.

[Paul Elliott]

There aren't any depictions of 3rdC daggers worn on gravestones, but I'm sure there are plenty of 2nd C ones. I'll have a look. That's an easy fix...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, I could do that impression right now, except the pturgues, but I was planning a 180ad ish impression.
Slowly getting the kit together.

[Paul Elliott]

Byron, I notice your interest in the Marcomannic thread. I've been torn between the two periods, but I have the belt fittings for 200AD

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well Still haven't decided on a belt for the impression yet. Waiting on my sword from Patrik Barta.
I suppose I could use the spatha I have for now to do something, but still need a correct period scabbard and
belt to boot.....maybe I should use that sword for the severan period, I can't say I haven't been thinking about a 2nd - 3rd cent impression either.
But need to make my mind up and do these things.
I like your picture though, certainly shows what you are thinking, as opposed as trying to describe things.

[Paul Elliott]

I often sketch up a picture, it helps to create an idea of what the finished impression will be when you're thinking: "pugio from there, a shield design like that, the Gallic C helmet from there, those greaves, a short sleeved tunic like the one in RMC 1", and so on. I think, what will it all look like when its finished? As I said above, I'm no Embleton or McBride!

Nice think about the changeable Severan period is choosing a little from the 2ndC, and a few things from the early 3rd.

[Graham Sumner]

Hi Paul

Since your Legionary was based in York, presumably for some time, one is tempted to ask why practically all the equipment you have picked comes from virtually everywhere else except Britain?

Are there no finds of military equipment from York or Britain of any kind dating to this period?

If I was reconstructing a Legionary from this period based at Eboracum I would have a look through the York reports first, then those on Northern Britain and Hadrian's Wall sites and then further afield in Britain. Finally as a last resort, any missing elements left would then be based on finds from the rest of the empire looking at the provinces from Northern Europe first.

In terms of sculpture those of the Severan era still show lorica segmentata being worn along with the traditional short sleeved tunic, although it has been argued by Bishop and Coulston that these images are poor imitations of early works of art.

Graham.

[Paul Elliott]

Graham, you're quite right - especially since the VI legion had been in York for almost 80 years (other than a foray into Gaul to fight for Pertinax in 197). The metalwork and swordgrip were 'collected' several years ago, its what I currently have. Easy option there is to turn it around and look at a legionary maybe based on the German frontier. Particularly since I've just put a circular chape onto the sword, something not yet attested to Britain.

Definately something to think about......

[Crispvs]

"to fight for Pertinax in 197"

Funny - I thought Pertinax was murdered in 193. Severus had a lot of respect for him and was extremely angry about the murder. It was probably for this reason that his entry into Rome was so bloody and why he disbanded the existing Praetorian Guard and replaced them with his own men (whose character he presumably estimated more highly). You didn't mean Clodius Albinus by any chance did you?

Anyway, so much for history. Given that Septimius Severus reigned from 193 -211, the Lyon burial would fit nicely into this timeframe, dating as it probably does to the mid 190s. Thus you could base much of your equipment on this, substituting items also found in York or elsewhere in northern Britain with the British examples, as Graham suggests. Even if you did not base things on the Lyon burial, the felix vtere type belts would almost certainly have carried on into the early third century and the ring buckle may not have been around quite so early. There would be some crossover for a few years in any case in all likelihood. The same might apply to wheel chapes. To my mind though, as the Lyon burial could be considered to be Severan anyway, as long as you are not looking to kit out a whole unit of soldiers, I see no reason not to use it as the basis of that part of your impression, taking into account the comments already made.

In terms of the helmet, I agree that the Italic 'G' helmet may still have been in use at this time but as the later flat section interlocking style of crossed reinforcement had been in use for at least twenty years by this time (and maybe more), the Theilenhofen helmet might be somewhat old fashioned. An Italic 'H' might be a good choice as well.

Crispvs

[Crispvs]

Byron,

I would suggest a peltate or box chape for your 'Marcomannic' scabbard.

Crispvs

[Paul Elliott]

That's the man :roll:

Funny - I thought Pertinax was murdered in 193. You didn't mean Clodius Albinus by any chance did you?

Crispvs

[Paul Elliott]

Thus you could base much of your equipment on this, substituting items also found in York or elsewhere in northern Britain with the British examples, as Graham suggests.

I've been thinking about this; rather than replace all my sword fittings with British examples, it may be simpler to place the 'impression' on the upper Danube, Lauricum, for example, where the new II Italica Legion was based. This was a favourite of Severus.

Even if you did not base things on the Lyon burial, the felix vtere type belts would almost certainly have carried on into the early third century and the ring buckle may not have been around quite so early.

The earliest dated ring buckle representation comes from Germany, 211AD - so the ring buckle itself is certainly a Severan innovation. I can't help think that his new legions, the two Parthian legions, had something to do with the spread of this new belt type. But that's just a theory.

In terms of the helmet, I agree that the Italic 'G' helmet may still have been in use at this time but as the later flat section interlocking style of crossed reinforcement had been in use for at least twenty years by this time (and maybe more), the Theilenhofen helmet might be somewhat old fashioned.

Interesting Crispus! ... are there any Italic 'G's with the raised re-inforcement? The only ones I know of (and I'm not helmet buff) are the Theilenhofen and the Hebron helmet. I'd be interested in any others. Or are you recommending fitting the raised interlocking reinforcement to a 'G' type Italic?? Thanks for your help

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Byron,

I would suggest a peltate or box chape for your 'Marcomannic' scabbard.

Crispvs

i have been toying with the idea, but then the Cantebury Kopki sword comes with a scabbard....
But It is a posibility for the scabbard for the other spatha for sure thanks.

[Crispvs]

Unfortunately (to the best of my knowledge at any rate) the Antonine period finds of these reinforcements from Corbridge and the Saalburg are no longer attached to whatever helmets they were once parts of so we cannot be sure of the exact form of the helmets they came from.

The Florence helmet (classified by Robinson as Auxiliary type 'C') is perhaps instructive here. I do not believe that the usual reconstruction of this helmet, following Robinson, is correct.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... helmet.jpg
Robinson's suggested reconstruction was done more to illustrate how early second century AD helmets might have looked than what the Florence helmet itself might originally have looked like. The reinforcements on the Florence helmet are not like the reinforcements added to the Berzobis helmet, or the reinforcements which formed an integral part of the design of the Hebron and Theilenhofen (Italic 'G") helmets. Rather, they appear to be of the same later type as the Corbridge and Saalburg finds, which appear to have been of cruciform shape in plan with equal length arms. The Florence helmet clearly saw long service and at a later stage it was modified by having its occipital region and neck guard cut away and holes punched around its rim, presumably for the attachment of a band to hold a lining. However, it retains its peak and this is similar in size to the peaks found on the so-called cavalry type 'E' helmets. It also retains the tops of its ear recesses and the top of an occipital ridge. The similarities to the other helmets and fragments suggests to me that it originally dates to the mid to late second century AD.
These similarities suggest that the known occipital ridge was probably one of several as the 'cavalry' "D' and ''E' (as well as the presumably slightly earlier Italic 'G' helmets) all have fairly deep occipital regions. The Hebron and Theilenhofen helmets also point to a lengthening of cheek guards in the second century and so I would suggest that the original neck guard would have been reasonably large. The neck guards of the Italic type 'H' helmets which may be close to contemporary but from a divergent tradition are certainly very wide and if the Hebron helmet can be of help here the trend towards large neck guards may have been developing for some time. I wold suggest that the original cheek guards might well have been of similar form to the South Shields cheek guard, although this is obviously itself a much later piece. Peronis and I discussed this reconstruction about three years ago and came up with this reconstruction picture:
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... rence3.jpg

To sum up then, I think the Florence helmet has been incorrectly classified by Robinson and should probably come immediately before his cavalry 'D' type, which is now generally believed to be infantry in any case. Given the evidence from Corbridge I think that it was originally made sometime in the third quarter of the second century AD. As such it would be suitable for use in a 'Marcomannic' impression and also probably a 'Severan' impression. The only pitfall with this is that our reconstruction of this helmet is only informed speculation rather than based on a further extant example which would prove or disprove my reconstruction.

I hope I have not muddied the waters too much.

Crispvs