Did the Romans have parade armour?

[Urselius]

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 As soon as you leave the realm of logic, which is what you do here, the discussion is obsolete anyway, IMO.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. :-)

You seem to be somewhat fixed on the idea of proof, I'm not trying to prove anything. What I am trying to do is provide an alternative to ex-cathedra type statements such as "no archaeological remains exist, therefore it did not exist," by providing parallels culled from other societies that might suggest otherwise. This is a perfectly valid thing to do.

Consider that a novel species of small cat is discovered - I was trained, initially, as a Zoologist. The question might be asked "does this cat scent-mark its territory." Presume that no evidence has been found that the cat behaves this way, as observation has been minimal. Is it then logical to say, "no direct evidence is available, therefore the cat does not scent-mark" or is it more useful and logical to observe that scent-marking has been recorded in related species of cat, therefore it is possible or indeed probable that the cat does scent-mark?

The parallel, as a logical argument, is identical to the case of Roman parade armour.

[Timianus]

In Rome itself, armed (meaning armored as well) soldiers were forbidden to cross the pomerium, which meant most of the route of a triumphal parade. Soldiers who did take part were given new, white tunics, victory wreaths and such, but no weapons or armor. They might have been allowed to wear their military belts and I would expect shiny, new caligae.The only armor and weapons seen in a triumph were on the trophies carried on floats. The general himself wore a special toga and tunic (toga picta, tunica picta.
Outside of Rome, we just don't know.

Didn't the magical pomerium line kind of fall by the wayside after Sulla and Caesar? Are you saying that the pretorians were not armed in the City?

[Urselius]

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. :-)

That there are cultures we know little about is entirely irrelevant, arguments cannot be made from unknowns to unknowns, only from knowns to unknowns. I am not making any attempt to create an all encompassing theory of societies. I am just pointing out parallels between known cultures.

Your question on personal use of apotropaic symbol amulets was addressed - the choice of the individual is not germane to the usage of a society as a whole, or to human psychology in general. We know that some/many Ancient Romans wore or inscribed apotropaic symbols, we know that some modern people also do so. The conclusion that the Romans were motivated by much the same desires and fears as moderns to wear such amulets is hardly controversial.

The internal homgeneity of individual societies is also of no particular relevance to the question of similarity between cultures in the use of items of martial display. One part of the Roman world may have favoured silvered shield bosses, while another preferred enamelled bronze - this is irrelevant as both were exhibiting a desire for not strictly utilitarian military display, as did the Rennaisance knights and nobles who bought grotesque close helmets for use in parades and festivals.

[Vindex]

MODERATOR GREEN

Gentlemen, can we please keep the subject on topic which concerns Roman parade armour not anthropology or other studies of behaviour.

NOT MODERATOR GREEN (but hopefully still on topic)

With regards to the Napoleonic comparison, modern armies are the same. I have four uniforms in varying degrees of smartness. Thanks to the terrible habit of following what our NATO colleagues wear (usually US military) we have a revolting set of working clothes which resemble green pyjamas covered in the most untactical item of material ever made...velcro. And so unsmart it is not true. My No1 dress, however, and my No5s is very smart. No6 is the bees knees...tropical mile: For some of the posh stuff there is a central store which is, not suprisingly, ceremonial

[caiusbeerquitius]

You seem to be somewhat fixed on the idea of proof, I'm not trying to prove anything. What I am trying to do is provide an alternative to ex-cathedra type statements such as "no archaeological remains exist, therefore it did not exist," by providing parallels culled from other societies that might suggest otherwise. This is a perfectly valid thing to do.

I am not fixed on proof as such. I said "if you want others to believe / agree on a hypothesis you should offer some arguments that might be regarded as proof of what you say". The ex-cathedra statement, were it mine, would say:

"No sources exist, thus it is a Schrödinger´s cat, and becomes a question of belief. As soon as evidence which can withhold a critical analysis is provided, I can know that it exists, which I would do most willingly any time."

It is IMO not necessarily worthwhile to spend time on this, if I still do not understand all the already available sources correctly, so it makes more sense IMO to spend time on what can be interpreted than on what cannot be interpreted (archaeologically / historically).

Consider that a novel species of small cat is discovered - I was trained, initially, as a Zoologist. The question might be asked "does this cat scent-mark its territory." Presume that no evidence has been found that the cat behaves this way, as observation has been minimal. Is it then logical to say, "no direct evidence is available, therefore the cat does not scent-mark" or is it more useful and logical to observe that scent-marking has been recorded in related species of cat, therefore it is possible or indeed probable that the cat does scent-mark?

The difference is, that there are no "cats" here. Your argument is perfectly valid, but it does not apply. In our case you should say:
"no cat is available, therefore the cat does not scent-mark"

The parallel, as a logical argument, is identical to the case of Roman parade armour.

Not. To be parallel there should be at least some kind of evidence for leather musculata. Then we could say: "Ancient Author A says.... therefore it is possible or indeed probable that... Y" or "The leather fragment B found at...therefore it is possible or indeed probable that... Z."

Bye, now. Really.

[Vindex]

MODERATOR GREEN

...ahem...Parthian shots not allowed either!

[caiusbeerquitius]

Gentlemen, can we please keep the subject on topic which concerns Roman parade armour not anthropology or other studies of behaviour.

I do not understand, Moi. How can such a topic be discussed, if there is no discussion about the method of interpretation? The discussion of Roman parade armour is intrinsically related to a methodological discussion, I would argue. Otherwise everyone will talk about something else, ad most won´t notice. Could you enlighten me?
Thanks! :-)

[caiusbeerquitius]

Well, I was writing while you posted.

[Robert]

Hi Moi, as we are discussing armor, not tunics, I suppose the modern day analogy would be if a standing army has a parade version of a flackjacket .... Or if a medieval knight had a lightweight suit of armor for display purposes only. Kinder on the horse, for sure :-)

[ValentinianVictrix]

I'm astonished no one has mentioned Constantius II parade in Rome in 354AD-

'temple of Janus had been closed and all his enemies overthrown, was eager to visit Rome and after the death of Magnentius to celebrate, without a title, a triumph over Roman blood. For neither in person did he vanquish any nation that made war upon him, nor learn of any conquered by the valour of his generals; nor did he add anything to his empire; nor at critical moments was he ever seen to be foremost, or among the foremost; but he desired to display an inordinately long procession, banners stiff with gold-work, and the splendour of his retinue, to a populace living in perfect peace and neither expecting nor desiring to see this or anything like it. Perhaps he did not know that some of our ancient commanders in time of peace were satisfied with the attendance of their lictors; but when the heat of battle could tolerate no inaction, one, with the mad blast of the winds shrieking, entrusted himself to a fisherman's skiff; another, after the example of the Decii, vowed his life for the commonwealth; a third in his own person together with common soldiers explored the enemy's camp; in short, various among them became famous through splendid deeds, so that they commended their glories to the frequent remembrance of posterity.

So soon, then, as much had been disbursed in regal preparation, and every sort of man had been rewarded according to his services, in the second prefecture of Orfitus he passed through Ocriculi,b elated with his great honours and escorted by formidable troops; he was conducted, so as to speak, in battle array and everyone's eyes were riveted upon him with fixed gaze. And when he was nearing the city, as he beheld with calm countenance the dutiful attendance of the senate and the august likenesses of the patrician stock, he thought, not like Cineas, the famous envoy of Pyrrhus, that a throng of kings was assembled together, but that the sanctuary of the whole world was present before him. And when he turned from them to the populace, he was amazed to see in what crowds men of every type had flocked from all quarters to Rome. And as if he were planning to overawe the Euphrates with a show of arms, or the Rhine, while the standards preceded him on each side, he himself sat alone upon a golden car in the resplendent blaze of shimmering precious stones, whose mingled glitter seemed to form a sort of shifting light. And behind the manifold others that preceded him he was surrounded by dragons, woven out of purple thread and bound to the golden and jewelled tops of spears, with wide mouths open to the breeze and hence hissing as if roused by anger, and leaving their tails winding in the wind. And there marched on either side twin lines of infantrymen with shields and crests gleaming with glittering rays, clad in shining mail; and scattered among them were the full-armoured cavalry (whom they called clibanarii), all masked, furnished with protecting breastplates and girt with iron belts, so that you might have supposed them statues polished by the hand of Praxiteles, not men. Thin circles of iron plates, fitted to the curves of their bodies, completely covered their limbs; so that whichever way they had to move their members, their garment fitted, so skilfully were the joinings made. Accordingly, being saluted as Augustus with favouring shouts, while hills and shores thundered out the roar, he never stirred, but showed himself as calm and imperturbable as he was commonly seen in his provinces. For he both stooped when passing through lofty gates (although he was very short), and as if his neck were in a vice, he kept the gaze of his eyes straight ahead, and turned his face neither to right nor to left, but (as if he were a lay figure) neither did he nod when the wheel jolted nor was he ever seen to spit, or to wipe or rub his face or nose, or move his hands about. And although this was affectation on his part, yet these and various other features of his more intimate life were tokens of no slight endurance, granted to him alone, as was given to be understood. Furthermore, that during the entire period of his reign he neither took up anyone to sit beside him in his car, nor admitted any private person to be his colleague in the insignia of the consulship, as other anointedc princes did, and many like habits which in his pride of lofty conceit he observed as though they were most just laws, I pass by, remembering that I set them down when they occurred.

So then he entered Rome, the home of empire and of every virtue, and when he had come to the Rostra,d the most renowned forum of ancient dominion, he stood amazed; and on every side on which his eyes rested he was dazzled by the array of marvellous sights. He addressed the nobles in the senate-house and the populace from the tribunal, and being welcomed to the place with manifold attentions, he enjoyed a longed-for pleasure; and on several occasions, when holding equestrian games, he took delight in the sallies of the commons, who were neither presumptuous nor regardless of their old-time freedom, while he himself also respectfully observed the due mean. For he did not (as in the case of other cities) permit the contests to be terminated at his own discretion, but left them (as the custom is) to various chances. Then, as he surveyed the sections of the city and its suburbs, lying within the summits of the seven hills, along their slopes, or on level ground, he thought that whatever first met his gaze towered above all the rest: the sanctuaries of Tarpeian Jove so far surpassing as things divine excel those of earth; the baths built up to the measure of provinces; the huge bulk of the amphitheatre, strengthened by its framework of Tiburtine stone, to whose top human eyesight barely ascends; the Pantheon like a rounded city-district, vaulted over in lofty beauty; and the exalted heights which rise with platforms to which one may mount, and bear the likenesses of former emperors; the Temple of the City, the Forum of Peace, the Theatre of Pompey, the Odeum, the Stadium, and amongst these the other adornments of the Eternal City. But when he came to the Forum of Trajan,e a construction unique under the heavens, as we believe, and admirable even in the unanimous opinion of the gods, he stood fast in amazement, turning his attention to the gigantic complex about him, beggaring description and never again to be imitated by mortal men. Therefore abandoning all hope of attempting anything like it, he said that he would and could copy Trajan's steed alone, which stands in the centre of the vestibule, carrying the emperor himself. To this prince Ormisda, who was standing near him, and whose departure from Persia I have described above, replied with native wit: "First, Sire," said he, "command a like stable to be built, if you can; let the steed which you propose to create range as widely as this which we see." When Ormisda was asked directly what he thought of Rome, he said that he took comfort in this fact alone, that he had learned that even there men were mortal. So then, when the emperor had viewed many objects with awe and amazement, he complained of Fame as either incapable or spiteful, because while always exaggerating everything, in describing what there is in Rome, she becomes shabby. And after long deliberation what he should do there, he determined to add to the adornments of the city by erecting in the Circus Maximus an obelisk, the provenance and figure of which I shall describe in the proper place.'

I would also like to mention that Ammianus describes in very good detail both Roman Clibanarii and Sasanid Cataphracts who wore metalic masks that only had nostril holes, the masks were a protection against bow fire.

[Sean Manning]

I can't think of many examples from the ancient, medieval, or early modern worlds where soldiers carried large objects which did not have a practical function. Even those heroic armours of the Italian renaissance (the book of that name is now online for free) were usually reasonably thick and normally made of good metal, according to Alan Williams' research.

MODERATOR GREEN

Gentlemen, can we please keep the subject on topic which concerns Roman parade armour not anthropology or other studies of behaviour.

I don't understand. This has become a thread about methodology in the historical sciences, yes? So comparison with other historical sciences is in order.

Since it is impossible to answer many questions in ancient history with more than say 75% confidence, I think that humbleness and acceptance that people will disagree is proper. I also think that if ancient historians and archaeologists only talked about the questions which can be answered with a high degree of certainty, they would have much less to do!

[Kegluneq]

I would also like to mention that Ammianus describes in very good detail both Roman Clibanarii and Sasanid Cataphracts who wore metalic masks that only had nostril holes, the masks were a protection against bow fire.

Perhaps, but these are not likely to have resembled the face masks of the earlier western cavalry so can't be directly compared.

[Vindex]

Gentlemen, can we please keep the subject on topic which concerns Roman parade armour not anthropology or other studies of behaviour.

I do not understand, Moi. Could you enlighten me? Thanks! :-)

You are arguing/discussing around the point not to the point.

[Robert]

Right, let's see if a small summary may be compiled.

There seems to be agreement on sources indicating:
Military (or the brass) the world over are fond of parades
Romans were part of a highly militarised society
Romans held parades
Soldiers in these parades are described as wearing fine tunics for the occasion
Soldiers in these parades sometimes wore shining armor

There seems to be disagreement on:
Soldiers in a parade wearing armor were wearing NOT their customary armor, polished to a shine, but COULD (by antropological comparison for lack of any sources stating this) have been wearing a non-function armor, made to look like the real thing or flashier, but produced, stored and maintained soly for the benifit of being in a parade.

Ockham's razor would indicate if a hypothesis looks too farfetched to be plausible, the chances are very high it isn't.

So let us forget the cat's scentmarks and apply both common sense and logic reasoning, as the whole thing reaks of a pisspoor argumentation.

[Urselius]

I'm astonished no one has mentioned Constantius II parade in Rome in 354AD-

I would also like to mention that Ammianus describes in very good detail both Roman Clibanarii and Sasanid Cataphracts who wore metalic masks that only had nostril holes, the masks were a protection against bow fire.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread - in the context that it was within the city of Rome and soldiers wore armour and carried weapons.