Did the Romans have parade armour?

[ValentinianVictrix]

Sorry, for some reason the original post appeared to vanish only to reappear again later.

[Urselius]

The Romans produced a considerable amount of often highly decorated armour purely for entertainment purposes. Gladiators were entertainers/sportsmen, their armour may have been functional within their "sport", but it wasn't made for the serious purpose of warfare.

Also no-one is suggesting that every grunt in the Roman army had a separate suit of armour for parade purposes, but we do need to consider the possibility that officers and some of the more ornamental units may have had armour dedicated to making an especially fine appearance in parades, celebrations and religious ceremonies.

Rennaisance parade armour was made, the Negroli of Milan were renowned for its production. It was of superb quality workmanship and very expensive and was not used in war. We know these things for certain. Were the men who bought such armour mere fools, or were they addressing real social and political pressures which made investment in armour purely for show worthwhile? Personally I think the latter is more likely.

[Urselius]

One definite piece of Roman parade armour - if helmets count - the toupha. This was a jewelled helmet with a crest of peacock feathers worn by later emperors in their role as conquering general. It was worn by Justinian the Great on the now lost equestrian statue in Constantinople. An early version is worn by Constantine the Great on a coin (the one on the dustjacket of Southern and Dixon's 'Late Roman Army').

[Robert]

Oh, but I think that does change matters in so far that I believe it is highly probable Legates, Tribunes and Emperors had ceremonial/parade armour. I believe that was one of the first questions I asked on this thread, are we talking rank and file or the top brass. There is even sculptura evidence to that account. A intricitly embossed metal musculata is pretty useless in a fight, as with all the raised bits, this makes it vulnerable to cuts, as it traps the sword allowing it to shear the metal instead of glancing off.
As we are wandering through time anyway, I would like to share a story of WWII along these lines, when Dutch soldiers went into battle with a brass lion (our national emblem) rivited to the forehead of their helmets. This looked great, but the metal plate prevented bullets from glancing off and a good few took a round through the front of the skull before they figured out it was the ornament which was rendering the helmet useless.

[Dan Howard]

Rennaisance parade armour was made, the Negroli of Milan were renowned for its production. It was of superb quality workmanship and very expensive and was not used in war. We know these things for certain.

A lot of the highly decorated armour such as Negroli's work definitely WAS used in battle. We have eyewitness accounts describing its use in battle and, as Sean already said, the plate was more than heavy enough to be effective. To claim that if a piece of armour was highly decorated then it wasn't worn in battle is not born out by the available evidence. Soldiers like to show off. Soldiers need portable wealth. Soldiers will conspicuously display their wealth in ornately decorated weapons and armour and they used these items in battle.

[Theodosius the Great]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Praetorians also wore armor in the city of Rome during the reigns of Claudius and Nero.

Tacitus mentions the Praetorians being "under arms" during Caratacus' captivity in Rome. (Annals 12, 36)
vocatus quippe ut ad insigne spectaclum populus: stetere in armis praetoriae cohortes campo qui castra praeiacet

Suetonius mentions the Praetorians "drawn up in full armor about the Temples in the Forum" during Tiridates' visit to the city. (Nero, 13)
Quem Armeniae regem magnis pollicitationibus sollicitatum, cum destinato per edictum die ostensurus populo propter nubilum distulisset, produxit quo opportunissime potuit, dispositis circa Fori templa armatis cohortibus

So, I suspect the old Republican tradition didn't survive long into the Imperial period.

~Theo

[Theodosius the Great]

Oh, but I think that does change matters in so far that I believe it is highly probable Legates, Tribunes and Emperors had ceremonial/parade armour.

And I would add the Praetorians to that list, Robert. They were paid much higher than legionaries and had fewer expenses, not having to worry about wear and tear of their equipment (well, for most of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD).

~Theo

[Charlie]

[i][i]Theo wrote:

And I would add the Praetorians to that list, Robert. They were paid much higher than legionaries and had fewer expenses, not having to worry about wear and tear of their equipment (well, for most of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD).[/i]
[/i]

I agree Theo that the Praetorians would have also been included in the list.

[Urselius]

Rennaisance parade armour was made, the Negroli of Milan were renowned for its production. It was of superb quality workmanship and very expensive and was not used in war. We know these things for certain.

A lot of the highly decorated armour such as Negroli's work definitely WAS used in battle. We have eyewitness accounts describing its use in battle and, as Sean already said, the plate was more than heavy enough to be effective. To claim that if a piece of armour was highly decorated then it wasn't worn in battle is not born out by the available evidence. Soldiers like to show off. Soldiers need portable wealth. Soldiers will conspicuously display their wealth in ornately decorated weapons and armour and they used these items in battle.

I didn't mean to imply that all decorated armour was impractical, just that some definitely was, including some Negroli armours - the more obviously fantastical ones.

There is a difference between highly decorated armour, such as engraved and blue and gilt armour, which was still functional and could and was worn in battle, and such confections as close helmets with visors in the shape of beast or monster faces, or with visors caricaturing their owners' faces or with large horns added to them or complete suits of armour so highly embossed that every surface would trap a weapon edge or point. The latter were parade or festival pieces pure and simple and were not used in war.

[Nathan Ross]

One definite piece of Roman parade armour... was a jewelled helmet with a crest of peacock feathers worn by later emperors in their role as conquering general... An early version is worn by Constantine the Great on a coin.

According to Nazarius (Panegyrici Latini IV.29.5), Constantine wore this very helmet while leading his troops in battle: "You are the first to fall upon the enemy line... The noble helmet glitters and with gems flashing light shows off the divine head. The shield shines with gold, with gold the arms. Oh how much power you have, valour, who in this attire display more fearsomeness than beauty?"

The editor's note here is a bit sniffy about this, arguing that golden armour would be impractical and suggesting that 'Nazarius describes Constantine as he would appear in a parade'.

And yet we know of late Roman helmets adorned with gold and silver plate, and with jewels. 60% of the helmet production of later Roman arms factories was gilded or silvered. Roman emperors and commanders liked to appear glorious and fearsome, and where better place to display such glory than on a battlefield? Later emperors may have adopted the helmet as more of a token or badge of military command, but there's no reason to assume that it wasn't initially used in combat.

Decoration didn't necessarily connote display, or high rank either. The Theilenhofen helmet, with its elaborate decoration and massive plume mountings, actually belonged to a trooper from a cohors equitata. Not an officer at all.

As far as I know, the only references to Roman display or 'parade' equipment have already been mentioned. Arrian Tactica says that during the Hippika Gymnasia "those of high rank or superior in horsemanship wear gilded helmets of iron or bronze to draw the attention of the spectators. Unlike the helmets made for active service, these do not cover the head and cheeks only but are made to fit all round the faces of the riders with apertures for the eyes..." (although, as others have said, there are references to masks being worn in combat, and one mask found at a battle site (Kalkreise).

The Josephus passage quoted by Graham earlier seem to imply either covers being removed from armour, or certain items (plumes?) being taken from cases and attached to armour. Nothing here implies different or alternative armour.

Tacticus (Histories) describes the Neronian praetorians fighting in battle and makes no comment about their having usual or distinctive armour. In the second battle of Cremona, the two soldiers who disable the Vitellian catapult are possibly praetorians (Primus sent the remains of the Othonian guard to support his centre immediately prior to this incident) - they pick up fallen shields to disguise themselves, so perhaps their shields were different (oval?) but their armour the same as the legionaries...

In my opinion, there's nothing to suggest that 'ceremonial', decorative or otherwise impractical armour existed in the Roman army, outside of certain performance displays (hippika gymnasia) or the exaggerated depiction of heroic emperors or gods.

[Urselius]

The toupha did not have a nasal, cheekguards or neck protection. The gilt and jewelled helmets worn in battle by emperors were probably rather more protective and practical than the toupha, whilst still being visually impressive. As late as the 1130s Byzantine emperors, in this case John II, were wearing "golden helmets" in battle - specifically at the Seige of Shaizar.

Guard units in other armies at other times had ordinary equipment for campaign and more elaborate equipment for ceremonial use. In 1815 the British Household Cavalry fought at Waterloo. On this occasion they used the standard 1796 HC troopers sword and wore a campaign uniform of a simple tunic, overalls (trousers) and low boots. On ceremonial duty at home they used swords with different scabbards and more elaborate hilts, a gold-braided tunic, white leather breeches and high topped jack-boots.

[Charlie]

Reading all of these posts in this thread, it appears that there is no real solid evidence saying yes there was ceremonial/parade armour or no it never existed in the Roman army.
I am not a learned man in the field of Archaeology or history etc. far from it, though my own personal view still remains that it did exist. I mean doesn't it make perfect logic that soldiers of high ranking who could afford and were let's say eligible because of their status, would wear such decorative musculata? Roman metal smithing was absolutely beautiful and the artisans of Rome were prolific in their work, so surely these skills would of extended to the beautifying of armour, wether parade or battle.
I know many members here will say that we cannot use sculpture, reliefs and Roman art in general as evidence, but why not? Isn't it true that art can imitate life? As everyone knows there are many statues and sculptures of Emperors depicting beautifully decorated musculata, are these all artistic license?

[Dan Howard]

I mean doesn't it make perfect logic that soldiers of high ranking who could afford and were let's say eligible because of their status, would wear such decorative musculata?

Of course it is. What is illogical is the assumption that these highly decorated armours were not worn in battle. Nathan's post is convincing. Why assume that these decorated armours were Roman "parade armours" when we already know that a lot of it was worn in battle and there is no actual evidence for parade armour? Is there any evidence for parade armour in any other culture during this time period that the Romans could have emulated?

[Dan Howard]

The toupha did not have a nasal, cheekguards or neck protection.

So what? There are helmets ranging over the entire history of warfare that were worn in battle yet have none of those.

There is a difference between highly decorated armour, such as engraved and blue and gilt armour, which was still functional and could and was worn in battle, and such confections as close helmets with visors in the shape of beast or monster faces, or with visors caricaturing their owners' faces or with large horns added to them or complete suits of armour so highly embossed that every surface would trap a weapon edge or point. The latter were parade or festival pieces pure and simple and were not used in war

We have eyewitness accounts where the writer describes the above armours in detail being used in battle and in tournaments.

There are 16th century paintings by artists such as Vasari depicting soldiers fighting in pitched battles wearing decorated muscle cuirasses and helmets in fantastic shapes.

Analysis of the plate thickness and metallurgy of Negroli armour by Williams concludes that they could have been used in battle.

That is all three types of evidence - documentary, iconographic, and archaeological - leading to the same conclusion; that those "confections" you describe were intended for and were actually worn in battle.

[Urselius]

The toupha did not have a nasal, cheekguards or neck protection.

So what? There are helmets ranging over the entire history of warfare that were worn in battle yet have none of those.

So what? Are less protective helmets than are generally available likely to be worn in conditions of danger (ie battle) by rulers? Seems unlikely to me. The toupha was worn in ceremonies when the face of the ruler was required to be visible, so conventional helmets with facial protection would be a very bad choice.

There is a difference between highly decorated armour, such as engraved and blue and gilt armour, which was still functional and could and was worn in battle, and such confections as close helmets with visors in the shape of beast or monster faces, or with visors caricaturing their owners' faces or with large horns added to them or complete suits of armour so highly embossed that every surface would trap a weapon edge or point. The latter were parade or festival pieces pure and simple and were not used in war

We have eyewitness accounts where the writer describes the above armours in detail being used in battle and in tournaments.

There are also 16th century paintings by artists such as Vasari depicting soldiers fighting in pitched battles wearing decorated muscle cuirasses and helmets in fantastic shapes.

Analysis of the plate thickness and metallurgy of Negroli armour by Williams concludes that they could definitely have been used in battle.

That is all three types of evidence - artistic, documentary, and archaeological - leading to the same conclusion; that those "confections" you describe were intended for and were actually worn in battle.

Are you really suggesting that pieces such as these:

http://www.theartblog.org/2009/10/power-...ry-of-art/

were intended for use in battle?

In contrast to the parade helmets of Charles V in the above link here is a helmet of Charles V really intended for use in battle:

http://www.bladeturner.com/picture/kd_armet.jpg

Painting, have you ever heard of artistic license? Of course you have because that is what Ancient artists used when showing muscle cuirasses bending with their wearers' movements. However, you would have it that Renaissance artists never used artistic license, that they always depicted things exactly as they were.

This smacks of double standards.