Just starting- C3rd Roman

[Crispvs]

"Having said that, and strictly out of interest, just how much genuine difference would there be between a legionary of AD43 and one of AD93?"

Well, it is impossible to be exact of course and we may well have to revise our understanding in the light of future discoveries, but there are differences that we can see on the present state of the evidence.

Both soldiers might, for example, be wearing lorica segmentata, but in the case of the earlier man it would almost certainly be of Kalkriese type, whereas the later man would be equipped with the Corbridge type, Kalkriese type fittings having disappeared from the archaeological record two or three decades before. The earlier soldier might be carrying a Mainz type gladius and scabbard. The is no firm evidence I know of for the Pompeii type that early, but the latest dated Mainz type sword and scabbard I know of (from Vindonissa) was deposited no later than AD71 as I understand it and fittings from the late first century AD are of Pompeii type. Caligae may well have been largely replaced by other types of boot by the late first century AD. The last evidence I know of for them comes from the Adamklissi metopes, but they appear to be absent from the archaeological record in Northern Britain, suggesting that they may have been dropping out of use in some places by the time the line was advanced north of Watling Street. The earlier soldier might well be wearing a belt with type 'A' or figural type 'B' fittings, but these are absent from Northern Britain and from the Flavian period onwards only type 'B' plates with concentric circles seem to carry on. These are joined and then replaced by plates with enamelled geometric patterns by the end of the century. The earlier man might be wearing an Imperial Gallic or Imperial Italic, Coolus or even a late Montifortino type helmet, whereas the later man would be very unlikely to be seen with either of the latter types and would probably be wearing either an Imperial Italic or Imperial Gallic helmet. Who knows what other changes may have taken place within that fifty year period.

Crispvs

[Crispvs]

I should add that I think that the replacement of Montifortino helmets by later types from the mid first century BC onward was every bit as radical a change as the introduction of ridge helmets late in the third century AD.

Crispvs

[Nathan Ross]

the replacement of Montifortino helmets by later types from the mid first century BC onward was every bit as radical a change as the introduction of ridge helmets late in the third century AD.

That's true enough, although in this case we do have the Coolus types, which seems to span the period of change, from the early Buggenham, which strongly resembles the Montefortino, to the later 1st century types, which approach the Gallic. We can see the different influences at work in a way that we can't with the 3rd-4th century.

As far as the AD43-93 comparison, I'm inclined to agree with you, as I always favour diversity over uniformity. However, so as not to derail this thread, I'll start a new topic about it in 'Military History...'

[magister clarissimus]

It's long been my belief that there was a different model of helmet in use throughout the 3rd century ... The most characteristic features are a rounded bowl and a brim rising to an inverted V over the brow - I believe this type is also shown on the Dura Europos wall paintings and the Arch of Constantine (where in profile it rather resembles a fisherman's sou'wester!)

[img size=250x400]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/images/stories/imagebase/FirstnameAB/lg_Aresd2.jpg[/img]
- Nathan

I've not read those earlier threads. When I see that inverted 'V' I always imagined the sculptor was trying to depict the huge triangular brow guards of the Heddernheim/Buch/Niedernmormter helmets.

I think Nathan is right. Look at this picture of the Ammendola Sarcophagus. These are clearly not the helmets with the triangular browguards that we know from excavations.


[attachment=1876]amendola_bg.jpg[/attachment]