Did the Romans have parade armour?

[Dan Howard]

The full face helms associated with these would have been impractical in battle.

why? We have plenty of other examples where full face masks and visored helmets were worn in battle.

[Graham Sumner]

Hello Dan

There are a few references to Roman soldiers on parade but as mentioned previously the only thing described are the specially bleached white tunics. The Arch of Titus shows soldiers celebrating the triumph over Judaea. No one involved appears to be wearing any armour.

Also during that war we have the famous account of Josephus V, 346 who describes the legionary pay parade. (Penguin translation) " In accordance with custom the soldiers removed their armour from its protective coverings and advanced in full panoply".

There are several other mentions of covers worn over equipment, such as helmets when worn in an ambush to prevent giving away the position. Indeed H.R. Russell Robinson proposed that some of the Rhineland tombstones showed Auxiliaries with covers over their mail.

A modern analogy would be Napoleonic soldiers who wore their best gear into battle but sometimes this was covered up to prevent it getting damaged or dirty. I would not have thought that Roman Soldiers could have afforded to keep another set of armour at base which was only worn on certain occasions. It would probably be stolen for one thing!

Graham.

[Urselius]

Looking at a diiferent martial culture, that of the Zulus. They had a festive uniform for each ibutho that was not worn in battle or on campaign. They also produced special shields for dancing. There is also plenty of European parade armour from Rennaisance times, entirely unsuited for battle, and often grotesque to modern eyes. It was produced only for visual effect.

Producing apparel, including armour where culturally appropriate, purely for ritual or parade purposes is a very widespread phenomenon. Why not the Romans too? A culture which would build ships merely to entertain people with mock naval battles would not baulk at creating some bling armour just for show.

The Chinese also had ceremonial armour that was reserved for court, but I fail to see how it is relevant. It was empty speculation that derailed the last thread. I was hoping that we could stick to an evidence-based discussion here.

So no armour was worn during a triumphal procession and it was forbidden to wear armour in Rome. Is there any evidence at all for Roman parade armour?

There is no direct evidence - otherwise there would be no discussion. There are no shop signs with - "L. Castus maker of parade armour" inscribed on them surviving.

The usage of other times and cultures is relevant because people are people, and they tend to behave in similar ways.

[Urselius]

To extend the Napoleonic analogy further, if Dan does not object to analogies in their entirety, then Napoleonic cavalrymen had at least 3 orders of dress: stable, campaign/ordinary dress and parade or full dress. Officers would have had more, including "walking out" and levee (if attending court). A cavalry officer would also have had a number of different swords: a workaday sword for campaign, a more highly decorated one for parade, a lighter sword for walking out and possibly a levee sword as well.

[Robert]

I know of no sources, which is why I commented the whole topic was a bust IMHO

[caiusbeerquitius]

The usage of other times and cultures is relevant because people are people, and they tend to behave in similar ways.

Can you back this up? Anthropology would rather teach that this is not necessarily the case, for a variety of reasons, thus a "Historical Comparison" is a rather difficult and much debated historiographic method. Or what exactly do you mean by "similar", which is, of course, quite a relative term.

Read:

R. Bendix, Herrschaft und Industriearbeit, Untersuchungen über Liberalismus und Autokratie in der Geschichte der Industrialisierung, Frankfurt a. M. 1960.
M. Bloch, Pour une histoire comparée des sociétés européennes (1928), in: Marc Bloch, Mélanges historiques, Bd. 12, ed. by Charles-Edmond Perrin, Paris 1963, p. 16-40.
H.-G.Haupt, J. Kocka (eds.), Geschichte und Vergleich. Ansätze und Ergebnisse international vergleichender Geschichtsschreibung, Frankfurt 1996.
M. Herren, M. Rüesch, C. Sibille, Transcultural History. Theories, Methods, Sources, Heidelberg/Berlin 2011.
B. Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Boston 1966.
C. Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, New York 1984.
S. Rokkan, Vergleichende Sozialwissenschaft: Die Entwicklung der inter-kulturellen, inter-gesellschaftlichen und inter-nationalen Forschung, Frankfurt a. M./Berlin/Wien 1972.
P. Flora, E. Fix (Ed.), Stein Rokkan. Staat, Nation und Demokratie in Europa. Die Theorie Stein Rokkans aus seinen gesammelten Werken, Frankfurt a. M. 2000.

[Urselius]

So no armour was worn during a triumphal procession and it was forbidden to wear armour in Rome. Is there any evidence at all for Roman parade armour?

Not entirely, Ammianus describes the armour worn by the soldiers of Constantius II in great detail during the emperor,s 'adventus parade' in Rome.

[Urselius]

The usage of other times and cultures is relevant because people are people, and they tend to behave in similar ways.

Can you back this up? Anthropology would rather teach that this is not necessarily the case, for a variety of reasons, thus a "Historical Comparison" is a rather difficult and much debated historiographic method. Or what exactly do you mean by "similar", which is, of course, quite a relative term.

Read:

R. Bendix, Herrschaft und Industriearbeit, Untersuchungen über Liberalismus und Autokratie in der Geschichte der Industrialisierung, Frankfurt a. M. 1960.
M. Bloch, Pour une histoire comparée des sociétés européennes (1928), in: Marc Bloch, Mélanges historiques, Bd. 12, ed. by Charles-Edmond Perrin, Paris 1963, p. 16-40.
H.-G.Haupt, J. Kocka (eds.), Geschichte und Vergleich. Ansätze und Ergebnisse international vergleichender Geschichtsschreibung, Frankfurt 1996.
M. Herren, M. Rüesch, C. Sibille, Transcultural History. Theories, Methods, Sources, Heidelberg/Berlin 2011.
B. Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Boston 1966.
C. Tilly, Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, New York 1984.
S. Rokkan, Vergleichende Sozialwissenschaft: Die Entwicklung der inter-kulturellen, inter-gesellschaftlichen und inter-nationalen Forschung, Frankfurt a. M./Berlin/Wien 1972.
P. Flora, E. Fix (Ed.), Stein Rokkan. Staat, Nation und Demokratie in Europa. Die Theorie Stein Rokkans aus seinen gesammelten Werken, Frankfurt a. M. 2000.

I can read French and to a limited degree Anglo-Saxon, but not German.

I think that it is widely understood that human beings are subject to universal motivations, and that, as a single species, basic behaviour patterns are also universal. I cannot imagine that this view is either novel or controversial. See for instance Darwin's Descent of Man.

Take a 'for instance' - apotropaic symbols. We have the 'lucky rabbit's foot' , St. Christopher medals etc. other modern cultures have similar devices, Sri Lanka has rings incorporating elephant bristles, China has elaborate knots in silk cord. The Romans used phallus symbols and 'mano-fica' hands to avert the evil eye or bad luck. Interestingly, they also used goat's penis shaped amulets which have survived to today - they are described as "cornucopia" but they are really pointed goat penises. Universal feelings of threat from 'fate', evil wishes from others, or the workings of chance produce universal responses in apotropaic symbols.

Looking at martial societies, is there evidence of the production of "military" equipment unsuited to practical use in battle?: Rennaisance Europe - yes parade armour, Napoleonic Europe - yes impractical full dress items of dress and officers gorget plates, Sumer - yes a gold helmet (obviously impractical), First Dynasty Egypt - yes stone mace heads far too large to be wielded, Celtic Europe - yes, Battersea shield, the flapping bird helmet from Romania etc. etc.

[Kegluneq]

The full face helms associated with these would have been impractical in battle.

why? We have plenty of other examples where full face masks and visored helmets were worn in battle.

Visored helmets are a special case, as they are usually designed to deflect attacks, and are made with multiple holes to enable a wide(ish!) field of view, as well as ventilation. Cavalry face masks are not as thick as these visors, nor are they designed for the effective deflection of attacks. Their benefits must have been primarily psychological.

Basically it would come down to how much of a hindrance they would be in combat. Could you wear such a helmet and be aware of what was happening outside of your restricted eyeline? Could you aim javelins and sword blows reliably? Would your breathing be affected? Obviously they could be used for daring military manoeuvres, but in an actual combat scenario would they be more of a liability?

I've never worn one so that would be a question for a reenactor to answer. I'd readily accept that they were used in combat, if the downsides to using them were not as bad as is often argued.

[PhilusEstilius]

Having made and worn Roman face masks I do not think they would have been worn in battle, for although there is the pin hole camera effect side vision can become a little restricted.
Where the human can have about 195 degrees of vision there could be a loss of 15 - 20% wearing a face mask which in battle is not what is wanted.
With this one there is extra downwards vision where I have stolen the tear drop system on the lower eyelids taken from the one found at Emesa in Syria but the side vision is still restricted as with most others.

[caiusbeerquitius]

I think that it is widely understood that human beings are subject to universal motivations, and that, as a single species, basic behaviour patterns are also universal. I cannot imagine that this view is either novel or controversial. See for instance Darwin's Descent of Man.

Well, yes, basic behaviour patterns are identical. The question is, where "basic" ends. People have developed different modes of going to the toilet (or not). So, as far as biological things are concerned you may be right (intestine perestaltics, e.g.). However, even each individual in a given society may have its own mode of doing something.

Take a 'for instance' - apotropaic symbols. We have the 'lucky rabbit's foot' , St. Christopher medals etc. other modern cultures have similar devices, Sri Lanka has rings incorporating elephant bristles, China has elaborate knots in silk cord. The Romans used phallus symbols and 'mano-fica' hands to avert the evil eye or bad luck. Interestingly, they also used goat's penis shaped amulets which have survived to today - they are described as "cornucopia" but they are really pointed goat penises. Universal feelings of threat from 'fate', evil wishes from others, or the workings of chance produce universal responses in apotropaic symbols.

You are, IMO, describing a meme which may be rooted back to an ancestor meme, and which itself is probably much older than civilization. I, for instance, do not carry an apotropaic symbol, and I know many who don´t. How would my non-behaviour be described, then? Also, your argument seems rather teleological. It is easy to find evidence for an already given hypothesis, but this is methodologically a no-go.

*edit*
The same is the case for your edited-in example. Also, the flapping birds helmet and the Battersea shield are perfectly usable, as reconstructions by Stefan Jaroschinski have shown. You start your arguments from a theory (as you say, I think "hypothesis"), not from the sources. Erich van Däniken is doing this also. He is very successful in selling his books. A methodologically sound way would be to ask "Is this so-and-so?", then to look at the sources with source-critical method, then draw conclusions. Other ways belong to fairyland. I think.
*/edit*

Visored helmets are a special case, as they are usually designed to deflect attacks, and are made with multiple holes to enable a wide(ish!) field of view, as well as ventilation. Cavalry face masks are not as thick as these visors, nor are they designed for the effective deflection of attacks. Their benefits must have been primarily psychological.

Basically it would come down to how much of a hindrance they would be in combat. Could you wear such a helmet and be aware of what was happening outside of your restricted eyeline? Could you aim javelins and sword blows reliably? Would your breathing be affected? Obviously they could be used for daring military manoeuvres, but in an actual combat scenario would they be more of a liability?

Apparently those face masks were among the most durable pieces of Roman armour. Experiments have also shown their high effectiveness as armour.

Read:
M. Junkelmann, Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz, Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 1996.
and Frank Willer´s articles in:
R. Meijers, F. Willer (eds.), Achter het zilveren masker - Hinter der silbernen Maske, Nijmegen - Bonn 2007.

see also:
http://www.rlmb.lvr.de/museum/forschung/...schung.pdf

Jurjen would be able to elaborate on this.

Apart from that, some of them were found in the context of battles / fights. So it looks like they were there, at least, when fighting took place.

[Urselius]

Well, yes, basic behaviour patterns are identical. The question is, where "basic" ends. People have developed different modes of going to the toilet (or not). So, as far as biological things are concerned you may be right (intestine perestaltics, e.g.). However, even each individual in a given society may have its own mode of doing something.


You are, IMO, describing a meme which may be rooted back to an ancestor meme, and which itself is probably much older than civilization. I, for instance, do not carry an apotropaic symbol, and I know many who don´t. How would my non-behaviour be described, then? Also, your argument seems rather teleological. It is easy to find evidence for an already given hypothesis, but this is methodologically a no-go.
.

The behaviour of the individual may not be representative of the society he or she belongs to, there is no problem with this as I was talking about societies not individuals as such.

As I read it, Dan is saying - 'no Roman parade armour is extant, no Roman military kit which is obviously unsuitable for practical use is extant, therefore the Romans did not produce parade armour.' Lack of evidence is evidence of lack.

What I am saying is that martial societies tend to produce martial objects - including armour when culturally indicated - that are not practical and are essentially for show. By extrapolation I would extend this to Ancient Rome, as Ancient Rome was a martial society and Roman psychology was not essentially different from the psychology of other people from other societies - human beings are human beings.

Gorgets were in origin practical items of armour protecting the throat and neck, and made of iron or steel. By the 1750s they were small, brass or silver ornaments suspended on a ribbon. They had no utility, no protective qualities they merely indicated officer rank.

Maces were in origin weapons for beating people - usually about the head - they were practical weapons. However, they also accrued meaning as symbols of power. Modern maces made of silver or silver gilt are used to reflect authority in parliaments and university convocations etc., they have no remaining function as a weapon.

Rather than my continuing to defend the idea that martial societies tend to behave similarly, I think that the view that the Romans were unique in not behaving like other societies in this regard is a more glaringly daring hypothesis in need of defence.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Rather than my continuing to defend the idea that martial societies tend to behave similarly, I think that the view that the Romans were unique in not behaving like other societies in this regard is a more glaringly daring hypothesis in need of defence.

Nice trick. Burden of proof, I would say.
You say: "Such and such societies behave so-and-so and/or in such-and-such patterns".
Proove it, if you want others to believe it.

The behaviour of the individual may not be representative of the society he or she belongs to, there is no problem with this as I was talking about societies not individuals as such.

Well, yes. Then one first would have to find out, how homogenous such societies were, and where and how they were following certain behaviours. Very complicated for Antiquity.

human beings are human beings.

Well, from an evolutionary perspective this is not correct. And from a culturally perspective either. Or are those, who do behave differently no humans?

[Urselius]

Nice trick. Burden of proof, I would say.
You say: "Such and such societies behave so-and-so and/or in such-and-such patterns".
Proove it, if you want others to believe it.

Well, yes. Then one first would have to find out, how homogenous such societies were, and where and how they were following certain behaviours. Very complicated for Antiquity.

Well, from an evolutionary perspective this is not correct. And from a culturally perspective either. Or are those, who do behave differently no humans?

Comparative anthropology is not as amenable to formal proofs as physics or mathematics are. Beyond producing parallels from different societies, and I have done so for societies covering 5 thousand years of history, there is no way of proving or disproving my hypothesis. If, on the other hand you can come up with a society which produced nothing but entirely practical artifacts then you will have dented my hypothesis.

By using the word 'human' the implication was, as you are no doubt aware, "Modern Human." However, the Neanderthals incised ornament into objects, used pigments (presumably to decorate themselves), and manufactured personal ornaments from animal teeth and mollusc shells, so perhaps they could be included. Homo ergaster (working from memory here, but certainly an extinct hominin) is known to have produced hand axes far too large to have been of practical use, and therefore probably of symbolic importance. We have half a million years or so of human effort which has gone into producing non-practical articles.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Comparative anthropology is not as amenable to formal proofs as physics or mathematics are.

But to logic. It certainly is amenable to logic.

there is no way of proving or disproving my hypothesis

As I said: If you want others to believe or accept your hypothesis, proove it. If you for some reason say it cannot be prooven, accept that others will disagree or not take you for serious. It is not the job of others to disprove your hypothesis, it is your job to back it up, and, if you want, to defend it by answering to ALL critique. The latter is something you do not, you just do so wherever you deem it to be worthwhile to help your argumentation. As soon as you leave the realm of logic, which is what you do here, the discussion is obsolete anyway, IMO. With that arguing you might want to start a new religion, I suggest.

By using the word 'human' the implication was, as you are no doubt aware, "Modern Human."

No, Í was not aware. There are / were cultures we know near to nothing about. Trying to find a general rule that would apply to these is IMO not possible. Also you didn´t answer my question about people that do / did not use charms, i.e. "non-behaviours". I can guess, why.
And this, neither:

Well, yes. Then one first would have to find out, how homogenous such societies were, and where and how they were following certain behaviours. Very complicated for Antiquity.

Anyway, have fun in further arguing with others. :-)