Legionary Development AD43-93

[Nathan Ross]

In this topic, about the changes in legionary equipment between the 3rd and 4th centuries, Crispvs suggested that a comparable change might be seen within the 1st century as well (and throughout Roman history, in fact):

If you were to take an example of a soldier of the period of the invasion of Britain in AD43 and contrast him with a soldier of fifty years later, you would see different sword and scabbard types, different belt styles, probably different helmet styles and possibly different footwear styles...

Many people tend to see the 1st century (or at least the second half) as a period of relative stasis in Roman military development, with the appearance of the 'classic' legionary look, so this is an interesting view.

So, although I certainly agree that changes took place during this period, for the purposes of debate I'm going to argue as devil's advocate here! :twisted:

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.

Can we be that sure of the dates for Kalkriese and Corbridge? Would it not be possible for a soldier of AD43 to be using a Corbridge segmentata? If so, then both he and his brother of 50 years later could wear the same armour...

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.

True enough. But again, can we be certain of the respective cut-off dates, bearing in mind that armour and weaponry could remain in use for decades? Would it really be so unlikely for a soldier of AD93 to be carrying an older style Mainz pattern sword?

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.

But Adamklissi (probably) dates to AD106 or so, and certainly after our date range. So both soldiers could be wearing caligae - providing they weren't in Britain!

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.

So both men could have belts with type 'B' fittings? :wink:

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.

I know our assignation of dates to the various Gallic helmets is often a bit of an educated guess, but could (say) a Gallic H (Augsburg) type not be worn both in 43 and 93?

In summary - would there be anything (as far as we know, based on available evidence and so on) to definitely date a legionary wearing Corbridge segmentata, a Gallic H helmet, a belt with 'B' type fittings, caligae, and carrying a Mainz gladius, to AD43 rather than 93? This period is (probably) before the widespread introduction of braccae, and certainly before long-sleeved tunics. Outside of Britain and suchlike far-flung places, could these two legionaries not be practically indistinguishable?

- Nathan

[Crispvs]

In this we are of course forced to live in the unsatisfactory world of termini post quem and ante quem. However, it is these we must use to guide some of our judgements.
We know, for example, that 'Kalkriese' type fittings have been found dating to no later than 9BC at Dangstetten, so it is reasonable to state that some legionaries would have worn this type of armour for an unspecified time after 9BC but we cannot state that it was not worn before 9BC. We can say that there is, at the present time, no evidence for it being worn before this time however. Similarly, the latest finds of Kalkriese fittings can be dated to no later than AD75, meaning that it may still have been in service after this date but if so there is no evidence to prove it. Absence of these fittings from sites which began after this point argues in favour of the Kalkriese type dropping out of usage in favour of the Corbridge type before the end of the first century AD.

The Corbridge type overlaps with the Kalkriese type in the archaeological record, with a fitting from Wadden Hill being dated to between AD43 and 50 and a fitting from South Cadbury dated to around AD45. We know from the Corbridge hoard that this type remained in service into the AD130s and as we now know much later in at least some places. Unfortunately, many of the continental finds cannot be dated, but those which can seem to confirm the British dates, suggesting that in AD43, Corbridge type armour may have been very new.

This means that yes, our two soldiers could both have worn Corbridge type armour but it is likely that only the earlier man could have worn Kalkriese type.

Similarly, our earlier soldier could have worn a belt featuring type 'A' plates or with either figural or concentric circle type 'B' plates. At sites whose occupation began from the late AD60s on, only the latter of these types seems to be found, and even that seems to give way to plates with enamelled geometric designs by the end of the century. When the evidence for something stops being found in datable contexts, we cannot say with certainty that that item was not used after that point, but neither can we say that it was. In the case of belts though, seemingly the items most subject to fashion and change, we might tentatively conclude that it might not have been.

Regarding swords, AD71 is the latest possible date (if I recall correctly) for the Mainz type from Vindonissa, which itself appears to be the latest dated Mainz sword and scabbard presently known. The fact that it was accompanied by a belt which featured figural type 'B' plates however, might suggest that some of the earlier dates proposed for the deposition of this sword may be preferable to the date in the AD70s. If the sword was genuinely deposited in the AD70s then the belt plates would be by far the latest such plates so far found. However, with other plates of this type being datable to earlier contexts and the Vindonissa deposition date unclear it would be safer to assign the Vindonissa sword an earlier deposition date in the possible range of dates.
There are numerous examples of Mainz swords but it may be significant with reference to the Vindonissa example, that the Fulham sword is the only Mainz pattern sword known from Britain and the find site argues for deposition no later than the AD60s. This means that Mainz pattern swords appear to be absent from the archaeological record by the AD70s on the current evidence. There is also the scabbard from Porto Novo which can be considered here, which includes features common to both Mainz and Pompeii types but which also forms part of a group known from a number of points throughout the empire, some at least of which appear to have been associated with Pompeii swords. Even this group seems to be associated with contexts which end in the middle of the first century AD and are therefore the last apparent links to the Mainz type sword. The terminus ante quem for the Pompeii type is the capture and occupation of Hod Hill, meaning that it may have been in service by the time of the invasion of Britain but may well have been a new introduction at that time.

There is plenty of evidence for equipment remaining in service for long periods of time so the two men could conceivably have worn the same Corbridge cuirass, but how long can such items really be kept in serviceable condition? Similarly it is conceivable that both could have worn the same helmet but for one it would be new and the other it would be old and perhaps battered.

So yes, the two soldiers, separated by fifty years could possibly have worn the same types of body armour, helmet and sword, but only if the earlier man was equipped with the latest kit available in his time. The later man though, on the present evidence, could not have worn a Kalkriese cuirass, a Montefortino helmet or a Mainz type sword and scabbard, all of which could possibly have been worn by the earlier man. Given the apparently fashion conscious nature of belts, it is highly unlikely that the two men would have had the same type of belt fittings unless the earlier man had concentric circle plates and the later man still retained an unfashionable old belt which also featured concentric circle plates, while most of his smirking comrades flashed their fashionable enamelled plates.

"Outside of Britain and suchlike far-flung places, could these two legionaries not be practically indistinguishable?"

As military units were stationed in border regions and fought on the frontiers, the vast majority of the equipment so far found comes from such far flung places. We seem to see evidence in the archaeological record of great similarity of equipment in different places at the same times but at the same time, the evidence of such things as late Hellenistic segmental armour, and Agen and Port helmets argue in favour of equipment entering service in one particular area and then spreading to other geographical areas, meaning that a soldier in one place might look different to a soldier in another place but in a few years the new equipment might have spread to conceivably make them both the same. The differing evidence of caligae in different places might be much the same thing in reverse - the decline of an item being introduced and spreading out from there.

There is also evidence for soldiers of different units having distinctive styles of presentation, meaning that although soldiers of different geographic areas might share equipment they might still be visually distinctive.

Returning though to change and development, I would have to say that I am not a believer in carbon copy Roman soldiers. Within any unit there would be a great variety of equipment in use by different men, including some which was older and some which was newer. This means that although you could conceivably have two individual soldiers who were separated by fifty years but, as already discussed, seemed to be virtually identically equipped, this would not be possible when comparing a group of soldiers with another group, even from the same unit, fifty years later. Some men in the earlier group would be using items which had fallen out of use by the time of the later group, whilst some man in the later group would be using items which had been introduced since the time of the earlier group. Two individuals fifty years apart might look almost the same, but certainly not two groups of soldiers.

Crispvs

[Tim Edwards]

My own thoughts:

Helmets: I am convinced that as a general rule (with exceptions!), Coolus and Imperial Gallic helms co exist as parallel lines of production, rather than subsequent. Both helmet types co-exist on many major sites, even when such sites were used for a short space of time. Why? I would argue for distinct user groups.
I believe that iron Imperial Gallic issues were largely adopted by the auxilia, copper alloy by the legionaries, hence the contrasting cresting styles, exclusivity of inscriptions on the copper alloy versions, tendency for iron helmets to be included in Augustan era weapon burials, and ultimately appearance of both forms concurrently on many, many sites.

Swords: Is there really evidence for Pompeii pattern at Hod Hill? There was a Pompeii blade from Broad/Long Windsor, albeit a stray find out of context, though nearby Waddon Hill has a later, into Neronian, date in any case. As the Porto Novo find reveals, many examples of hitherto considered Pompeii scabbards are actually likely Mainz type scabbard furniture. I do not have a copy of Miks, but I have yet to see obviously Pompeii pattern specimens in the Claudian era. I would argue that Mainz predominates still for the Claudian period, and there are scabbard clips from early UK sites which do strongly suggest the embossed Mainz pattern was in more general use.

Segmented armour: There are still only a handful of Kalkriese type fittings from the UK, almost entirely confined to the Claudian sites in Dorset/Sussex (II Avg?). Corbridge pattern is far in the majority, though interestingly no obvious evidence for Corbridge B in the Claudio-Neronian phases. Interestingly sub variant of the Kalkriese hinge would appear to follow II Avg from Strasbourg to Southern Britain (Bishop/Thomson type Fi/Fii)

Daggers: There are probably more guttered types out there than we realise. Finds from Pompeii/Herculaneum (the 'gladiator' daggers) show that identical mounts could be applied to dagger scabbards as on the Valkenburg/Porto Novo/Waddon type gladius scabbards.

Pila: As per Connolly, the popularly misrepresented wedge hafted pila had probably ended service by now, for simple spike tanged or socketed versions.

[Nathan Ross]

Thanks for the comprehensive replies, Crispvs and Tim. The point about troops stationed in different parts of the world is a good one: it's very likely that a legionary based in Syria and one in Britain would appear very different.

I would still maintain, in discursive mode, that our two men could feasibly be equipped more or less identically (barring, perhaps, swords and maybe pila) - but while this may be the case in theory it almost certainly was not in practice!

[Gaius Colletti]

I believe that iron Imperial Gallic issues were largely adopted by the auxilia, copper alloy by the legionaries, hence the contrasting cresting styles, exclusivity of inscriptions on the copper alloy versions, tendency for iron helmets to be included in Augustan era weapon burials, and ultimately appearance of both forms concurrently on many, many sites.

Did you perhaps mean that the Imperial Gallic helms were used by the legionaries predominately and the coolus (beginning in the second half of the 1st century anyways) predominately used by the auxiliaries?

Now mind you, I understand that it is accepted that either could wear either helm, but do reliefs not point out that legionaries were the ones depicted wearing the Imperial style helmets? Perhaps I am wrong, it is hard to tell on those little reliefs just what exactly a legionary is wearing.

Aside from that, the Imperial helms were more complex and more detailed, and certainly more decorated than the bronze/copper (mostly coolus) helmets. Not to mention that the Imperial helmets are much more comfortable (ear slots anyone?) than the Coolus helmets. For these reasons it only makes sense that the higher paid legionaries would opt for the more decorated helmets, even if they were iron, although we do have at least one example of a Gallic helmet being "tinned" eliminating much of the maintenance of a regular iron helmet

[Tim Edwards]

Did you perhaps mean that the Imperial Gallic helms were used by the legionaries predominately and the coolus (beginning in the second half of the 1st century anyways) predominately used by the auxiliaries?

Nope, and I am well aware this well be heresy to a generation accustomed to popular representations and reenactment portrayals. My argument is not not legionaries would not normally have had Imperial Gallic helms, but that they typically would not have had iron Imperial Gallic Helms.

It is generally accepted that both could wear either helm, but my own theory is that the copper alloy versions were more popular with the legionaries, the iron with the auxilia.

If this theory generally held true, it would explain:

I) Why we see two very different cresting styles on the copper alloy and iron helmets, ie crest knobs often plus side feathers (copper alloy) vs crest slides (iron).

II)Why the habit of applying ownership inscriptions was generally confined to copper alloy helms, and lacking on even well preserved iron issues.

III) Why Augustan military weapons burials typically feature iron rather than copper alloy helms (a legacy of Iron Age weapon burial tradition in the auxilia)

IV) Why Coolus and Imperial Gallic helmets appear on the same sites time and time again, for a span of nearly a century, ie that they are separate lines of development, worn by different troops which were commonly grouped together.

do reliefs not point out that legionaries were the ones depicted wearing the Imperial style helmets?

The Mainz pedestal bases, which may show legionaries, appear to show Imperial Gallic helmets, but were these modeled on copper alloy or iron examples? We do not know!, but I would suggest the latter.

Look at the series of copper alloy Imperial Gallic helms, referred to as the I type. These typically exhibit crest knobs, side feathers and legionary ownership inscriptions, ergo: legionary use!

Consider also the conventional narrative of helmet development, that typical legionary helms went from copper alloy montefortino, to copper alloy coolus, to iron imperial gallic (eh?!), whilst northern auxilia went from agen/port and early imperial gallic to... 'basic' copper alloy helmets??
I think it makes more sense that our legionary helmet lines begin to incorporate more imperial gallic features in the late first century but remain of copper alloy, whilst the average auxiliary type progresses from basic Agen/Port through to developed imperial gallic types.

On detail, copper alloy imperial gallic helmets show about the same level of detail as iron imperial gallic helmets.

Finally, I'm sure that there is an abstract quote from somewhere in Tacitus that implies that legionary and auxiliary helmets were distinct (if you are more inclined to trust history than archaeology!!)

Nathan - on Roman military equipment development (your original topic before I hijacked it with a leftfield theory, the answer will likely lie in comparing and contrasting Claudio-Neronian military equipment assemblages (Hod Hill) with Trajanic assemblages (Corbridge hoard).

I would expect that by the Trajanic era, Coolus helms have generally dissappeared, alongside Imperial Gallic A-H, Mainz swords, anthropomorpic / zoomorphic embossed belt plates, A Type dagger sheaths. Later marks of Imperial Gallic will have developed(I-J, Pompeii swords, predominately B Type dagger sheaths, Corbridge B segmentata will have arrived.

[Crispvs]

I don't know of any evidence for type 'B' sheaths as late as the end of the first century AD. There would certainly have been frame type sheaths in use in Trajan's time though, but what form they took is open to informed speculation.

Regarding helmets, I am not completely convinced by the argument. It is true that it is the Imperial Gallic type 'I' helmets which feature inscriptions (a couple of them at any rate) but a good case can be made for these helmets being used specifically by the two Adiutrix legions. For other inscribed helmets, as I don't have Robinson to hand at this exact moment, are there any inscribed copper-alloy helmets of Coolus type with inscriptions? I can think of a number of Montefortinos with ownership inscriptions but no inscribed Coolus helmets spring to mind. Not all Gauls were wearing Port or Agen helmets prior to the conquest of Gaul either. Most would not have had helmets at all but in any case, there were probably regional preferences for particular helmet types, according to where the centres of production were. Many Gauls would have been far more familiar with copper-alloy Coolus helmets than with iron Port or Agen types and I would find it hard to believe that Caesar would not have turned the workshops producing Agen and Port helmets over to supplying his own troops, meaning that there would have been a steady flow of iron helmets into legionary units from the time of Caesar onwards. It may be worth noting too that at least one iron Coolus type 'C' has been found as well, on the same site as a copper-alloy Coolus type 'C'.

On the matter of crests I don't thinks it is quite so simple either. Each type of helmet had its own style of crest fittings, but that in itself does not tell us what those crests looked like, past an understanding that crest blocks for Imperial Gallics were probably square in section. It is true that a number of Coolus type helmets have feather tubes, but by no means all of them do and the iron Imperial Gallic type 'F' from Becansion also has feather tubes, as, I believe, does the Ribchester cavalry helmet. There is also the Coolus type 'E' from Verulamium which has had its crest knob 'neutered' by having the point (with its slot and lateral hole) removed.

Moreover, the similarity of the crest fittings on all of the Imperial Gallic type 'I' helmets and their probable association with the Legiones I and II Adiutices, along with the stele of C. Castricius Victor, suggest cresting arrangements may well have been a matter of individual unit identity, rather than a citizen / non-citizen demarcation. Note also on that front Legio V Adaudae (the Larks) - supposedly due to their distinctive crests).

A minor point too on the Imperial Gallic type 'I' helmets is that they appear to have featured not a Coolus style knob but a taller 'anther' type crest mount.

On the matter of Tacitus' well known comment about legionaries, auxiliaries and praetorians all picking up helmets at random belonging to each other in the confusion of getting ready for an assault by Vespasian's soldiers, I have often wondered whether this might be in large part a rhetorical device which serves to underline the confusion.

Crispvs

[Joze Noriker]

... it is very interesting to read all that - you have big knowledge about roman equipment (by the Celts i have the same) I would like to have in the future the same viewpoint&knowledge on Roman Military&Zivi-world, too but i am new in "Roman-world" ....


Joze
Edit: it is correct: the Gauls had different type of helmet, they were changed in the time of 1. ct. BC; i am doing now on late time of la Tenne III (the end of it) and we have here in Slowenia 3 types of helmet of this short period of the end of Lt III/Lt D2/Morkonog IIIb- the end of it. The variables are point of geographical-influencess, but sometimes in time of 20 BC - 15BC-10 BC are the helmets different in small geographical-area of 10 km area..... they made variables in material (iron; combination iron-bronze; brass etc ...) by the same helmet-type; but sometimes in different helmet types. Here we don't have any evidence of Coloos type, but we have next variante of the Prot type and another the late la Tenne type of Montefortino. By the Romans the early variante here is Weisenau type, but not the Gallic A type.

[jho]

I can think of a number of Montefortinos with ownership inscriptions but no inscribed Coolus helmets spring to mind.

There are a lot (references to specific units in brackets): Burlafingen (leg. XVI), Hönnepel (Coh VI), Schaan (Coh III), Xanten-Wardt (Leg. XXI), Wissel, 3 x river Waal, Texel (possible Hexeres), Cologne (leg. XVI), Lobith, Xanten, Drusenheim (leg. IV), Brabant, Mokrice (Coh III), Zemun, Brussels, 2 x Guttmann (1 "ALON"), Kerkyra, San Kanzian, Sava river, new find in Nijmegen

Nope, and I am well aware this well be heresy to a generation accustomed to popular representations and reenactment portrayals. My argument is not not legionaries would not normally have had Imperial Gallic helms, but that they typically would not have had iron Imperial Gallic Helms.

Well in fact, continental scholars like Waurick, Klumbach etc. have traditionally assigned the earliest iron Imperial Gallic helmets to Celtic auxilia, and cavalry at that.

I agree that it is certainly wrong to assign helmets to the Auxilia on the basis that they are simpler or cheaper (just look at modern "Ethnic" units whose equipment is regularly much richer and more colorful than that of their regular comrades).

I would also agree that up to at least the middle of the 1st century it is highly likely that the simple and cheap Coolus helmets were the standard equipment of legionaries whereas at least some auxilia would be wearing the much more spectacular Imperial Gallic helmets.

Whether the iron Imperial Gallic helmets were exclusively worn by auxilia and when legionaries started wearing Imperial Gallic ones, we cannot say with any degree of certainty.

As early as the Augustan campaigns in Germany, iron Imperial Gallic helmet parts are a regular find in legionary contexts and such helmets were produced in legionary camps. Of course this may have been production intended for auxiliary use but I am not sure that this is the most likely explanation.

The Mainz pedestals show what appear to be legionaries in Imperial Gallic helmets but they also show what appears to be an auxiliary in a simpler helmet form. To me this indicates that both types of units will have been using both types of helmet rather than assuming any sort of wild cross-exchange of equipment following the Batavian war.

Although it is correct that Roman helmet making was traditionally based on bronze, the Celts were also quite accustomed to using bronze helmets, just think of the Mannheim/Coolus finds all over France (although it is subject to discussion whether these were produced locally or by the Romans). The lack of inscriptions on iron helmets is not conclusive because even in other helmet types where there is no reason to assume a divide between legionary and auxiliary use (e.g. Pseudoattic cavalry helmets, Niederbieber type helmets), inscriptions on bronze helmets are abundant but on iron helmets are exceedingly rare. The reason may either be that such inscriptions were less likely to survive on iron (corrosion or the inscription may have been applied to a sheeting which is now lost) or that they were not applied for technical reasons (many iron helmets were plated with sheet and others may have had other protection against corrosion which may have been compromised by punching/scratching).

The "adiutrix" connection is very attractive but must remain speculative (as most of our conclusions) due to the small number of actual finds.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

This is all fine, but it sounds very much like personal preference again rules out over
reality, in lui of hard evidence!

[Renatus]

For other inscribed helmets, as I don't have Robinson to hand at this exact moment, are there any inscribed copper-alloy helmets of Coolus type with inscriptions? I can think of a number of Montefortinos with ownership inscriptions but no inscribed Coolus helmets spring to mind.

Robinson cites a Coolus E helmet from Nijmegen with the neckguard inscribed, "C(enturia) J. Irvi. Juni Sencudi" (Plates 59-61). The inscription can be seen on Pl.61.

The Coolus E helmet from London in the British Museum has four inscriptions on the neckguard (J.W. Brailsford, 'Roman Helmet from London', The British Museum Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan. 1951), pp. 17-19). Below is the illustration of the neckguard from this article with the transcription of the inscriptions.

[attachment=1754]RomanHelmetfromLondon.jpg[/attachment]

[Peroni]

This Coolus E from Xanten also has an inscription under the neck guard..
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/o...Itemid,96/

"LEG - XXI[R?J (b) >.P.P.L.CVN[---] © [-]VTIC[ani(?)] II (d) [2-3]INI

This can be interpreted as: Legio XXI (Rapax) the... inus, from the of Century of the Primipilus L.. . cu(n)dus.

[Joze Noriker]

Zitat: "Well in fact, continental scholars like Waurick, Klumbach etc. have traditionally assigned the earliest iron Imperial Gallic helmets to Celtic auxilia, and cavalry at that."

yes- this was my interprettaion, too: but i don't know this infos about the Waurick, Klumbach, etc .... i yust see the strong connection between the grave-items in that graves, the time of them (Augusteian time) and the fact, that this warriors were by the Roman-army not by the Gallic/Celtic. The other items in this graves are roman: the fibula Almgren Nr. 236 A, Almgren nr. 19, the roma nbelt buckle and the very late form of the late Latene III speer. The pottery is imported from Italy and in some paralele graves are some items of brass and terra sigilata ceramics. Strong roman character by the Post-Gallic cavalry - we have some graves by this style hre in Slovenia and they are some other from the paralele time in Luxemburg/Nospelt-Göbling. I am doing on this presentation. The items are in Luxemburg National Museum, here the first museum zitat by the Luxemburg-thread: http://www.kelten-info-bank.de/museen_i-r.html
Joze

[Tim Edwards]

All,

Thanks for the positive criticism of my comment. Some very informed views.

Joze,

Some good points, the Augustan era romanised weapons graves give us a rare look at finds in a different archaeological context - individual weapon panopolies. Can we safely assess that such are Auxilia? (irrespective whether infantry or cavalry) I believe so. There is also the grave at Nijmegen, with the Gallic A, which we can add to this series, plus those from Idria Pri Baci, Verdun, Chassenard.
If these are indeed early first century / Augustan auxilia, how might they differ from legionaries? What isn't included?

Crispus,

I think I have been vindicated on cited examples of inscribed Coolus. I agree about the compelling evidence for the Imperial Gallic I equipped Flavian era Adiutrix legions, but suspect that this is a trend wider than just these two units. We also find near identical cheek guards at the classic legionary sites of Vindonissa and Caerleon.

On cresting styles, the Besancon find is the exception that disproves the rule, but I do not believe it disproves the trend. Feather mounts and crest knobs are incredibly rare on early imperial iron helms, they are very common on copper alloy examples. The 'anther' type crest mount I am not familiar with. My assessment was that the Imperial Gallic I types were generally fitted with a crest knob as the primary crest support element.

On dagger sheaths - I'm sure Type B has been found in late First Century contexts in Romania, though I can't remember whether these were Trajanic or not. Otherwise I would have thought that the common use of frame types in this era would be equally speculative without evidence in context.

Jens,

I am certainly not asserting that iron or copper alloy helms were exclusive to either arm of the Roman military, but more a general trend. I think it is possible to over emphasise the lack of uniformity in the Roman army. I find reenactment line ups where each member of contubernium has a completely different pattern of helmet unconvincing. Examining one squad, in one place, at the same time, of a similar rank, on a similar task, with a common supply chain, general trends must surely be identifiable.
I had no idea that Klumbach et al had assigned Imperial Gallic helms to the Auxiliary Cavalry! Food for thought.
On iron Imperial Gallic helmets in legionary camps, I would be very surprised if the same sites did not also produce evidence of copper alloy Coolus helms. If my theory holds, you will normally find both in simialar contexts due to the grouping of Legionaries and Auxilia at the same locations.
How else do we explain the phenomenon of the two helmet patterns being found in identical contexts across Northern Europe for a span of 50 years or more?

Finally, Nathan,
Copy your point on Devils Advocacy, if you'd only written Infantry Development AD43-93 we wouldn't be in the buggers muddle of trying to untangle what may have been legionary from what was auxiliary!!!
(and why those dates? If by AD43 you are looking for a robust UK orientated Terminus Post Quem, consider that even in the UK there is now nascent debate as to whether some Roman military equipment was deposited pre AD43...)

[Nathan Ross]

I think it is possible to over emphasise the lack of uniformity in the Roman army... Examining one squad, in one place, at the same time, of a similar rank, on a similar task, with a common supply chain, general trends must surely be identifiable.

That's a very good point. Might it also be worth considering whether the differences in (say) helmet patterns in the Roman army within a relatively close date bracket might simply indicate a difference in supplier, rather than some empire-wide stylistic progression?

if you'd only written Infantry Development AD43-93 we wouldn't be in the buggers muddle of trying to untangle what may have been legionary from what was auxiliary!!!

The subject title in this case come from Crispvs' post in the original thread linked above, the comparison being between a legionary of the invasion of Britain and one fifty years later. The original thread was discussing the 3rd-4th century, by which time (probably) legionary and auxiliary equipment was near indistinguishable anyway!

If by AD43 you are looking for a robust UK orientated Terminus Post Quem, consider that even in the UK there is now nascent debate as to whether some Roman military equipment was deposited pre AD43...)

Yes, I've suggested that myself! :wink: