Encyclopedia of the Uniforms of the Roman World...

[Condottiero Magno]

Thanks all for the reviews. Due to the extent of the subject and the number of pages, I didn't expect the title to be anything more than an introduction and while I'm willing to overlook the occasional mistake, the number of errors that's been pointed out, has convinced me to avoid purchasing this book, especially as it's not available locally AFAIK. A Mr. D. Evans has mentioned errors in his Amazon.co.uk review:

I've been waiting many months for this book to be released, and I must admit the final product is a let down. Just a quick flick through the book is enough to show that this title is poorly researched and full of inaccuracies, and is therefore a questionable guide to Roman 'uniforms'. First off it's worth mentioning that the Romans themselves didn't wear military uniforms in the same way as armies have done since the 19th century; instead they were given standardised equipment in the form of a helmet, armour, shield etc after the reforms of Gaius Marius. This equipment would not have been exactly alike in appearance for a whole legion, so the depiction of a cohort (pg.99) wearing matching helmets and even lorica squamata (scale armour) is very questionable. There are many other errors:

1. A 3rd century BC signifer is shown wearing a first century AD Imperial Gallic helmet, and a 'Pompeiian' gladius. (pg. 76)
2. The first century BC Gallic leader Vercingetorix is depicted wearing Bronze Age armour of about 12th century BC. (Pg.115) On the same page a Gallic cavalryman is shown wearing Macedonian armour like those worn by Alexander's Companions.
3. Spartacus is shown wearing a mix of Republican era lorica hamata ('chain mail') and a first century AD Gallic helmet. On the same page a Gladiator is also shown wearing a first century AD cingulum (military belt) for some inexplicable reason.
4. An Auxillary cavalryman of the 5th century AD is shown wearing a mask similar to Zorro (pg.149). This is clearly a mistake by the illustrator who hasn't realised that Cavalrymen wore full face masks.
5. 5th Century AD cavalryman in first-second century AD equipment (pg.151)
6. Roman cavalryman of AD 476 dressed in first century AD Auxiliary equipment (pg.153).
7. Constantine the Great shown carrying a medieval longsword, similar to those used by 13th century knights. The reconstruction is based on a modern statue from York (pg.188).

There are so many other errors I can't list them all; but that should give you an idea of the mistakes found in the book. It seems to me that the reconstructions, the best ones found in the book anyway, are copied paintings from books by Peter Connolly, Graham Sumner, and Raffaele D'Amato. Others are clearly based on illustrations from Osprey Military books, even down to the original Osprey errors, such as the depiction of a 4-th-5th century Roman soldier wearing first century caligae (sandals) and leggings on pg. 147. Even worse are some of the reconstructions based on copying inaccurate equipment from modern designs. Some soldiers are shown wearing helmets based on Deepeeka's (an Indian company) early line of defunct 'trooper helmets'. These items are mostly banned from modern Roman re-enactment groups for their inaccuracies, so it's puzzling to see one being held by the Emperor Trajan (pg.105).
The illustrations themselves are nicely done, so the book gets a star for those, and some of them are quite accurate. Unfortunately the book itself suffers from too many inaccuracies for me to recommend it, as it could be very misleading, especially to those who don't know much about Roman military equipment. I'm an amateur myself, so I'm sure an expert could point out even more mistakes. Simply put, this is one of the most poorly edited titles on the Roman military since Stephen Dando-Collins's Legions of Rome from last year.

The Amazon link has the author's responses...

The supposed justification for the reconstruction of a Gallic cavalryman in Macedonian gear is based on the images in the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus and according to another Amazon reviewer:

Bishop and Coulston, in Roman Military Equipment, 2nd Edition, page 66, support this, when they describe the Roman soldiers on the altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, images of which can be found online. 'This monument also depicts a cavalryman wearing what is clearly a Boeotian helmet, a broad-rimmed type dating back to Hellenistic times and recalling Polybios' comment about Roman cavalry being equipped in the Greek manner.' This type of helmet is also depicted in Nick Sekunda's Republican Roman Army, Osprey Men at Arms no 291, plate G2, but with a yellow plume.

[Caratacus]

Yes, as Graham Sumner (and others) have said, it's a very derivative work - although there is a lot there. The author has copied certain aspects of Connolly's 'style' (collections of helmet types, or spear variants) but without the detail that Connolly incorporated into his paintings. Also, you knew that Connolly had actually seen and handled the various items that he painted. I don't get that impression here.

Many of the paintings look like they are 'dressed photographs'. This was a technique pioneered some years ago in a number of books by Michael Barthrop (I think), particularly where Napoleonic subjects were concerned. It's a little surreal at times!

The one big advantage of this work is that it extends well into the late empire period, indeed into the period of the Byzantine Empire to some degree. It's often not easy to come by this information. Of course, it has to be accurate ....... and this is where the lack of a proper bibliography is most serious. Just how reliable is this information?

Mike Thomas (Caratacus)