Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Leather Squamata.......Really?
#16
We're way off topic here, but the reason the Roman Empire worked for so long was because they allowed each nation to maintain their local customs, religion, identity and in some cases rulers. They all maintained their own national identity under the umbrella of being "Roman" but in name only.
"The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones"

Antony
Reply
#17
Egypt, unlike other provinces in the empire was run by a prefect rather than a governor who could raise troops in a crisis or client ruler who had his own forces. From the time of Octavian & the death of Cleopatra it was considered like a personal fiefdom of the emperor probably because it was so rich & important for the supply of grain & it had no client rulers but after the sack of Jerusalem on 70AD a lot of Jews moved to Alexandria which was always a hotspot of trouble between Greeks & Jews & later on Christians & Jews which probably meant most units were stationed around Alexandria or Nile delta. Unless the wealthy landowners could maintain private armies which I don't think the Romans would tolerate then more than likely the armour belonged to Roman legionaries or auxiliaries. There is always the possibility that over time these units recruited locally & had 'gone native' using local means & methods to make armour. Zenobia took over Egypt temporarily while Aurelian was occupied in the west so possibility of Palmyran troops there but except for a few units from Thebes (cohorts Thebaeorum I & II) which remained in Egypt & 3 legions at first but later down to 2 legions I think all units based in Egypt were foreign Auxilliaries. When the empire split it became part of Eastern empire so I am not sure how it was run or garrisoned after that though.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#18
So, using this logic, you can have a suit of armour made in an Egyptian style in an Egyptian workshop by an Egyptian armourer and worn by an Egyptian soldier, but you call the armour "Roman" simply because the soldier serves in a Roman army.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#19
Dan Howard wrote:
Quote:So, using this logic, you can have a suit of armour made in an Egyptian style in an Egyptian workshop by an Egyptian armourer and worn by an Egyptian soldier, but you call the armour "Roman" simply because the soldier serves in a Roman army.
If it wasn't made by someone who was at least in the pay of the Romans in the timeframe mentioned then who in Egypt around this time did make it? Wasn't it dated to 3rd or 4th century AD or are you saying it is older?
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#20
How do you define "Roman armour". IMO if it is an Egyptian design made by an Egyptian armourer and worn by an Egyptian then it is Egyptian. Even if the armour was sold to the Romans it is still Egyptian armour.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#21
Quote:We're way off topic here, but the reason the Roman Empire worked for so long was because they allowed each nation to maintain their local customs, religion, identity and in some cases rulers. They all maintained their own national identity under the umbrella of being "Roman" but in name only.

Until of course they adopted the Roman Government, Culture, and identity after (approximately) 75 years of Roman rule. Hence the term Romanization.

Quote:Egypt, unlike other provinces in the empire was run by a prefect rather than a governor who could raise troops in a crisis or client ruler who had his own forces. From the time of Octavian & the death of Cleopatra it was considered like a personal fiefdom of the emperor probably because it was so rich & important for the supply of grain & it had no client rulers but after the sack of Jerusalem on 70AD a lot of Jews moved to Alexandria which was always a hotspot of trouble between Greeks & Jews & later on Christians & Jews which probably meant most units were stationed around Alexandria or Nile delta. Unless the wealthy landowners could maintain private armies which I don't think the Romans would tolerate then more than likely the armour belonged to Roman legionaries or auxiliaries. There is always the possibility that over time these units recruited locally & had 'gone native' using local means & methods to make armour. Zenobia took over Egypt temporarily while Aurelian was occupied in the west so possibility of Palmyran troops there but except for a few units from Thebes (cohorts Thebaeorum I & II) which remained in Egypt & 3 legions at first but later down to 2 legions I think all units based in Egypt were foreign Auxilliaries. When the empire split it became part of Eastern empire so I am not sure how it was run or garrisoned after that though.

After that it's based on the way it was run in the Notitia Dignitatum. The last Legion in Egypt was V Macedonica, which survived until it's conquest by the Arabs.

Beginning in the 4th century you start to see wealthy landowners hiring private armies that later became the system of Bucellarii under Aetius, Stilicho, and Belisaris.
Reply
#22
Quote:How do you define "Roman armour".

Surely 'Roman armour' is whatever was worn by Roman soldiers?

By the 3rd century AD the average 'Roman' soldier in Egypt would have been born locally, perhaps spoken demotic Egyptian or Greek, and have had close ties with the local population. But he would have a Roman, or Romanised Greek, name, serve in a unit with a latin title (cohors I augusta praetoria lusitanorum is attested around Karanis), conduct official correspondence in latin, make sacrifice to the emperors of Rome and receive his pay from the Roman state. Surely he would have considered himself to be a 'Roman soldier'?

Would this identification change if he, or the officer commanding his unit (and some of the Egyptian auxiliary garrisons were very small and isolated), opted to supplement whatever armour was supplied by the nearest Roman armoury with a leather scale cuirass made to a traditional local pattern?

(this is all assuming that the piece in question is genuine military equipment, and the dating is correct!...)
Nathan Ross
Reply
#23
Quote:Apparently it doesn't matter who made it or who wore it, if it was found anywhere in the Roman Empire then it must be Roman. That is the only argument that anyone can use to claim that it is Roman. The same argument is used to claim that the armour found at Dura Europos is Roman.

You have no idea how many times I have facepalmed at re-enactors doing this.



Quote:
Dan Howard post=350345 Wrote:How do you define "Roman armour".

Surely 'Roman armour' is whatever was worn by Roman soldiers?

I both agree and disagree and I feel it is far more nuanced than that.

In one sense, this is correct - anything that was worn by a certain culture can be considered that culture's armour. Things get more complicated with large states with multiple cultures and multiple different styles within its borders.

Unless this type of armour appears more widely in the Empire, I don't think it can be called "Roman" but rather should be classed as a local type with the label "Egyptian." Those proposing a broader label of "Roman" would have to prove its use elsewhere, rather than an isolated use somewhere within its borders. I think re-enactors and historians do not give enough thought to local variations - I would be very surprised if the legionaries from Egypt and Syria were equipped in the same fashion as those from Britain.

One thing I have noticed about Roman historians and reenactors is that they are very keen to label absolutely anything and everything (including things outside the borders!) as "Roman" but tend to throw a hissy fit every time labels based on foreign influence or regional / local variations are used for items which were previously thought of as "Roman."
Nadeem Ahmad

Eran ud Turan - reconstructing the Iranian and Indian world between Alexander and Islam
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan
Reply
#24
Quote:Things get more complicated with large states with multiple cultures and multiple different styles within its borders.

Very true, and the very complex multiculture of Roman-era Egypt is perhaps the most complicated of all! But I suspect that, for the average citizen of the 3rd century, the army would be the most visibly 'Roman' aspect of the local scene. Even so, I'd be happy to call this piece a local type with the label "Egyptian." (could we perhaps call it 'Romano-Egyptian'? ;-) )

But, as you go on to say, we probably overemphasise the homogeneity of the Roman army anyway. I believe there is some evidence for centralised textile supply, for example, in the first century, but I'm sure that in later centuries especially there could have been much more reliance on 'local types' of this or that...


Quote:Roman historians and reenactors... are very keen to label absolutely anything and everything... as "Roman"

But isn't there a countering urge to label anything which doesn't fit our rather narrow evidence-based conception of what Romans did or wore or used as 'non-Roman'? Both these misconceptions are changing, I think, as we gain more understanding of the plurality of the Roman world, but it's a slow process...
Nathan Ross
Reply
#25
Regarding Textile Supply, we had a discussion on the "Leather Musculata" and the ability of the Roman Army to supply it's soldiers with Chainmail on TWC (of which I was on the side that Chainmail was really good armor and the Empire certainly had the capability and did supply it's soldiers with Armor). So this brought up the Notitia (of course) and we were discussing centralized supply.

My point is though, that I came across several pieces on the Notitia (notably in A.D. Lee's Roman Warfare 300-425) that described the Centralization of Textile Manufacturing for the Army. I'll get you the exact page numbers in a moment.
Reply
#26
As a side issue, has any other Roman-era armour been found in Egypt? (I don't mean that outlandish crocodile-skin item :-P )

I can't actually think of any other military finds myself, aside from the Fayum shield and a possible helmet liner... It does seem curious that so many centuries of military occupation have yielded so little.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#27
There was a pair of Caligae found in Quasr Ibrim that date to the 2nd Century AD, as well as several finds of Byzantine Officer's Solae that date to the late 5th or late 6th century in another part of the country.
Reply
#28
Quote:
daryush post=350371 Wrote:Roman historians and reenactors... are very keen to label absolutely anything and everything... as "Roman"

But isn't there a countering urge to label anything which doesn't fit our rather narrow evidence-based conception of what Romans did or wore or used as 'non-Roman'? Both these misconceptions are changing, I think, as we gain more understanding of the plurality of the Roman world, but it's a slow process...

Hmmm, I guess I am not seeing this trend changing. Perhaps it is changing more on the Central European / NW European fronts (where I'm not really involved at all, other than the occasional Central Asian influences) rather than the West Asian theatre where I mainly operate. My attempts to re-label certain finds and depictions based on style rather than location (Antinoe, Dura Europos, Kerch, for example) have been met with insane stubbornness.
Nadeem Ahmad

Eran ud Turan - reconstructing the Iranian and Indian world between Alexander and Islam
https://www.facebook.com/eranudturan
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Leather Edge Color for Squamata Doc 9 1,841 11-19-2014, 08:54 AM
Last Post: Crispianus

Forum Jump: