anyone experience with this helmet manufacturer

[franciscus]

it wil be the period of Imperator Augustus... the first decade(s) of the first century...

gallic A, hamata...

[Crispvs]

That sounds good.
If you are also looking for a sword, I would go for either an early Mainz pattern sword or possibly a 'Hispaniensis', such as the Augustan period example found in the River Ljubljanica.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...=entrypage

There is something of a question mark over what shape shields were at the end of Augustus' riegn, but your safest bet would be to go for a scutum with curved sides and straight top and bottom edges. For belt plates, you are best off choosing plain plates and fittings like the ones found at Kalkriese. You could get away with the Velson plates though, as these were deposited in the late 20s AD and were evidently old already by that time. I believe that Perojnis sells copies of the Velson fittings through Armamentaria.

Crispvs

[franciscus]

that is indeed a very "discrete gladius"...

I wonder, what about the cingulum... in republic age you don't see the cingulum (often), when was the "introduction periode" of the cingulum ?

[Crispvs]

We don't really know when the habit of decorating military belts developed, although the wealth of evidence for belt fittings by the early first century AD compared to the rarity of such items from first century BC contexts makes it tempting to think that the adoption of highly decorated belts may have gone hand in hand with the setting up of a permanent professional standing army after Augustus' settlement of 23BC.

Caesar refers to his providing his soldiers with equipment decorated with precious metals in order that they would take greater care of their equipment but we do not know whether or not this included decorated belts. If it did however, this might have been the origin of decorative plates on military belts. However, the hard evidence to support this view is lacking.


The 'Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus' shows four legionaries and a cavalryman. These all war mail with belts but there is nothing to suggest that these were plated. However, the men are also shown apparantly barefoot, which suggests that some details were painted on and so the belts may (but equally may not) have been more decorative than they appear today. This monument dates to some time during the first half of the first century BC.
The Roman soldiers depicted on the column of Aemilius Paulus at Delphi, dating to the 130sBC also show mail worn with belts but again these belts appear to be plain and any paint which might have helped us is now long gone.

The belt had been significant for a long time for Roman military service. It allowed the tunic to be hitched up above the knee in a military fashion and there are some indications that during the Republic soldiers returned from campaign would pass through the Gate of Janus and remove their belts as they did so, to visually signify their return to civilian status (with the tunic now worn full length rather than hitched up with the belt. However, there is nothing to indicate that these belts were in any way unusual, so we really do not know when the concept of the 'cintus' or 'balteus militare' (please note that the term 'cingulum' seems to have referred to women's belts until sometime in the third century AD) developed.

Even for the Domitius Ahenobarbus and Aemilius Paulus soldiers, the best we can say is that they wear belts. Whether or not these belts were categorically 'military belts' is anyone guess really. It may be entirely possible that strong undecorated belts had long been seen as 'military belts' and that it was only later that they started to be adorned with plates. Then again, the concept may have been introduced at the time of the rise of the professional Roman soldier.


Incidentally, the reproduction Velson fittings that Peronis sells can be found here:
https://www.armamentaria.com/store/index...20a&page=4

Sorry I could not link to it before. I was at the library and the filter system would not allow access to any site which mentioned weapons.

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes ok, thank you for your help, but my problem still remains the same... no deepeeka for me, because of the well known problems with it (to round, no oval skull form, etc...) Even changing the form by "sitting on the sides" won't work... I did that with one of my deepeekas... the result is not satisfying. My headcircum is 60 cm, perhaps not very big, but I need more an oval form, otherwise I cannot even were a padding under it...

Well that is just a wee bit smaller around than mine, and I wear one of these improved Gallic 'G's. It is tight, but I can wear padding with it too.

[Gaius Colletti]

You need to define the part of the century you want to depict, so that all your equipment is historically compatible. A Gallic 'A' would certainly fit into the early first century AD, but (for example) a Corbridge type segmentata would not and neither would a Pompeii type sword. By the middle of the century both these things would be available but an Imperial Gallic 'A' helmet would be quite old by then and would probably show signs of a lot of wear and tear.

I hate to be the guy to nitpick, but I'm only doing so because I use a Gallic A, Pompeii Gladius, and Corbridge type segmentata in my AD40-45 impression. The Gallic A dates as far back as 25BC and as late as AD45, the Pompeii Gladius dates as early as AD64, but it was believed to be introduced about AD50, and the Corbridge Segmentata dates as early as AD40. I use all three in my impression. Military equipment, at least styles appear to last for about 50 years sometimes more. My impression is a little bit of a stretch, but is in no way unbelievable or implausible

[jvrjenivs]

I hate to be the guy to nitpick, but I'm only doing so because I use a Gallic A, Pompeii Gladius, and Corbridge type segmentata in my AD40-45 impression. The Gallic A dates as far back as 25BC and as late as AD45, the Pompeii Gladius dates as early as AD64, but it was believed to be introduced about AD50, and the Corbridge Segmentata dates as early as AD40. I use all three in my impression. Military equipment, at least styles appear to last for about 50 years sometimes more. My impression is a little bit of a stretch, but is in no way unbelievable or implausible

At the risk of going to much off-topic, I have to say you should be careful by with this statement. Although it may be true for items like the shields, helmets and armour type, we see much more variation in belts! If you look deeper into it, you can determine belplate down to a timeframe smaller as a 50 years timespan in general. Also, in some cases (where foreign influences are present) you can even say of which part of the empire the soldier is from (and that also might be a real tiny part). Realy, don't underestimate fashion.

[Gaius Colletti]

Of course you are correct. I was not questioning the use of belts, that is a subject I am completely unqualified to make as Roman balteus are my least knowledgeable area. If there is one surprising thing I have learned, it is Roman fashion. The Romans were very pragmatic people, for example with Imperial era helmets, the cheekguards, ear slots, neckguard, cross bars (Dacian campaign era) and browguard all are very functional and rather clever, but also they were vain in the sense that they did unnecessary decoration such as brass edging, brass decorations (especially with the later Imperial era helmets), and embossed eyebrows, solely for fastion