01-31-2004, 10:53 PM
<em>I don't want to sound like I'm arguing that this piece really IS battle armor, or that I don't believe in the concept of parade armor in general!</em><br>
<br>
Well I don't mind being caught saying that I do not believe in the concept of 'parade armour' in Roman armour (this has also surfaced elsewhere in another thread).<br>
<br>
So-called 'lorica plumata' <em>has to be</em> viewed as battle equipment.<br>
<br>
Why?<br>
<br>
It is found in the same contexts as material we accept as for battle use; issues of practicality (eg it's flimsy/vulnerable/fragile) never stopped the Romans (witness lorica seg and a lot of excavated examples of scale); we have to be <em>so</em> wary of imposing our own standards back onto the Romans (just because we think it would be unacceptable does not mean they would necessarily agree).<br>
<br>
Show me the results of Shrivenham-type testing on reconstructed samples made using comparable materials/methods of manufacture - and that it thus proves to be radically inferior to any other type of Roman armour - and I might begin to give at least due consideration to the issue, but until that time I think the whole 'parade armour' hypothesis is a chimera born of sloppy thinking on the part of past generations of art-historical-trained archaeologists ('it looks pretty so it can't have been for serious use') and that we, as students of Roman military studies, are better than that.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Well I don't mind being caught saying that I do not believe in the concept of 'parade armour' in Roman armour (this has also surfaced elsewhere in another thread).<br>
<br>
So-called 'lorica plumata' <em>has to be</em> viewed as battle equipment.<br>
<br>
Why?<br>
<br>
It is found in the same contexts as material we accept as for battle use; issues of practicality (eg it's flimsy/vulnerable/fragile) never stopped the Romans (witness lorica seg and a lot of excavated examples of scale); we have to be <em>so</em> wary of imposing our own standards back onto the Romans (just because we think it would be unacceptable does not mean they would necessarily agree).<br>
<br>
Show me the results of Shrivenham-type testing on reconstructed samples made using comparable materials/methods of manufacture - and that it thus proves to be radically inferior to any other type of Roman armour - and I might begin to give at least due consideration to the issue, but until that time I think the whole 'parade armour' hypothesis is a chimera born of sloppy thinking on the part of past generations of art-historical-trained archaeologists ('it looks pretty so it can't have been for serious use') and that we, as students of Roman military studies, are better than that.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>