Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
\"Celtic\" military technology and the Romans
#16
Quote:I would argue that the hoplite/legionary class is too large to have a parallel with feudal nobility, and isn't wealthy or powerful enough in society to.

To use the example of the legionary because every single Greek Polis had different laws so hoplite generalization wouldn't be too accurate the wealth requirement of 11,000 ases before Cannae reduced to 4,000 ases afterwards in order to find conscripts would have much more in common with middle class then nobility considering as late as Augustus the property requirement to be an equestrian was 100,000 denarii.

The ideology as well as class was also too different for comparison; the feudal noblemen just owed fealty to his liege and followed where he led; the citizen voted and had an opportunity to speak against something he objected to and whatever side he took fought the way the popular assembly voted.
It's true that the larger size of the middle class means that each citizen individually had less wealth and power than a big man or aristocrat. However, I still think the basic parallel holds: The people with political power, of greater or lesser degree, and with a certain minimum of wealth, are the ones obligated to participate in war. Aristocrats may not necessarily straight-up vote in a feudal system, but due to their personal wealth and retinue, they're still usually in a position to influence their liege's decision in one way or another -- at least, I'm pretty sure that's the case far more commonly than an absolute monarchy.
Dan D'Silva

Far beyond the rising sun
I ride the winds of fate
Prepared to go where my heart belongs,
Back to the past again.

--  Gamma Ray

Well, I'm tough, rough, ready and I'm able
To pick myself up from under this table...

--  Thin Lizzy

Join the Horde! - http://xerxesmillion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#17
Quote:There is also another picture I am seraching for (Roman, Replublican period I think) of a horse falling with his rider still on; IIRC, that has no breeching straps either.
Is this the one?
http://fr.academic.ru/pictures/frwiki/67...20814_.JPG
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#18
Thank you, yes, that is the one I had in mind. It has a breeching strap of sorts but not the same as the ones seen on horned saddles.

I'm at work at the moment and need to be on my own cmputer with me research library!
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
#19
Thank you for all the replies!

Indeed, I would agree that the Roman legionary has more in common with Greek hoplites and such in general terms, but I'm looking to focus specifically on technological links between early, 'pre-provincial Celts' (if you'll forgive the term) and Roman legionaries up to the reign of Claudius. In particular I'm looking at the Gallic Helmet used, and am wondering does any one have any particular views arguing/ sources proving that the Celts directly influenced Roman armour and improved the standard legionary's chances of survival?

Thanks,
Michael
Reply
#20
Mail was the most versatile, longlived, and widespread type of armour ever invented. It saw continual use by virtually every metal-using culture on the planet for the best part of two thousand years. It absolutely improved a soldier's chances of survival compared to other types of armour available at the time. The only question is whether the Romans adopted it from the Gauls. Roman authors seem to have believed that it was Gallic. Regarding helmets, the Romans used a variety of different typologies and I'm not sure whether any particular one offered more chances of survival over another, so, for this argument, it wouldn't really be relevant whether any of them were adopted from the Gauls.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#21
Well, I'll do my best with helmets, but I'm no expert and I'd love some more info myself. Check out the Roman coins website for a good timeline with lots of photos (some of which I will repost for your convenience).
http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquip...elmet.html

Galea/Cassis
Montefortino
The issue of helmets is somewhat complicated by the fact that the Roman helmet evolved into a great number of forms. However, the number of extant examples lets us suppose an "evolution" of the design. I'll post pictures so everyone can judge for themselves as to the accuracy of my timeline.
The Roman Montefortino helmet was probably introduced around 300 BCE. It bears a striking resemblance to celtic types of the same time, and earlier Celtic type seem to show a clear evolution. Compare the Helmet of Ciumeşti (imagine it without the bird!) or the Agris helmet to the Monetifortino and then to the Greek and Italic types already in use. The Montefortino greatly resembles the Celtic types, and besides the scalloped cheek pieces, bears little resemblance to the Greco-Italic type. So I would conclude that the Roman Montefortino is essentially a Celtic helmet with Greco-Italic cheek pieces.

Coolus
The Coolus seems to be more or less a refined version of the Montefortino. the main changes are a more prominent neck guard and a brow bar or brim. These changes were also adopted by Celts of the same time, so it's difficult to say who made the changes first, though I am inclined to believe it was the Romans.

Imperial Types
Again, the Imperial type helmets (Gallic and Italic) appear to be more or less evolutions of the existing Coolus types. Compared to the Coolus, Imperial types maintain the basic form but fit closer to the head and extend the neck guards down and around the neck at a sloped angle. This may have been influenced by the older Greco-Italic types such as the Attic Helmet, which was probably still in use by officers. As the Imperial types evolved, the gained more original features such as ear guards, cross bracing and carefully shaped, hinged cheeks. The cheeks are really remarkable, as the maximize fit and protection while minimizing obstruction of sight and hearing. At some point, you could say that the helmets became uniquely roman, as the continued to evolve into new forms.
The main confounding factor (for me at least) is the presence of the Port bei Nidau helmet type. As far as I know, this is Celtic helmet produced in the early 1st century CE or the late first century BCE. It certainly looks a lot like the Imperial Gallic types (which were probably first made by Gallic craftsman in Roman Gaul). If this type was a Gallic inovation, it is safe to guess that it was largely influence by the Coolus helmets of the Roman invaders in Gaul. On the other hand, it may very well have been copied from modifications already being made by Roman. I just don't know.

Later Types
By the time that the Imperial type helmets were in wide use, Gaul had been conquered and Celtic technology more or less fully absorbed by Rome. Although there were still independent Celts, they didn't really have much less to teach the Romans (at least in terms of weapons technology). From there on out, the Imperial types evolved on their own to the closer fitting "weiler" types for cavalry, and the extra heavy Neiderbeiber types. these maintain the same basic "vocabulary" but have drastically different proportions, such that they bear little resemblance to early types. The Celtic tradition of helmets ends with the introduction of ridge types, which are based on eastern designs.

Conclusion
The Celts were contact with the Romans for hundreds of years, and much of that contact was hostile. Both the Celts and the Romans continued to improve their helmet designs through this period. Both probably influenced one another in the process, further driving the evolution that ultimately gave birth to the Imperial type helmets. Even when Gaul was subdued, Gallic craftsmen continued to produce helmets for the Roman state, thus continuing the Celtic influence on Roman helmet design. Thus, I would conclude that (generally speaking) Roman helmet designs were an amalgam of influences and original innovations, with Celtic influence being particularly notable.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
                                       
Reply
#22
You will probably be familiar with Peter Connolly's helmet typology. It is 40 years old now but is still helpful.

[attachment=10748]ConnollyHelmetTypology.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#23
Some decorative elements of the 'Imperial Gallic' helmets, eyebrows and enamelled studs, seem to have been of direct Celtic inspiration. Despite pro forma denigration of the Celts as barbarians, the Romans seem to have been quite keen on acquiring Celtic metalwork, especially torcs, which became an integral part of Roman awards for military prowess.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#24
Quote:
MagnusStultus post=359165 Wrote:I would argue that the hoplite/legionary class is too large to have a parallel with feudal nobility, and isn't wealthy or powerful enough in society to.

To use the example of the legionary because every single Greek Polis had different laws so hoplite generalization wouldn't be too accurate the wealth requirement of 11,000 ases before Cannae reduced to 4,000 ases afterwards in order to find conscripts would have much more in common with middle class then nobility considering as late as Augustus the property requirement to be an equestrian was 100,000 denarii.

The ideology as well as class was also too different for comparison; the feudal noblemen just owed fealty to his liege and followed where he led; the citizen voted and had an opportunity to speak against something he objected to and whatever side he took fought the way the popular assembly voted.
It's true that the larger size of the middle class means that each citizen individually had less wealth and power than a big man or aristocrat. However, I still think the basic parallel holds: The people with political power, of greater or lesser degree, and with a certain minimum of wealth, are the ones obligated to participate in war. Aristocrats may not necessarily straight-up vote in a feudal system, but due to their personal wealth and retinue, they're still usually in a position to influence their liege's decision in one way or another -- at least, I'm pretty sure that's the case far more commonly than an absolute monarchy.

I agree there is some comparison and unless it is an absolute monarchy the nobleman had influence outside the law a standard roman voter didn't have despite his higher amount of rights; but I think we agree the comparison is limited by the middle instead of 1st class status of the legionary/hoplite.

As far as technological influence I think the most important piece of evidence of influence is visual; if the thought of Gaul's inventing mail was wrong then we would be able to see that Roman mail doesn't resemble it however

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...eres_2.jpg

Gallic

http://www.sheshen-eceni.co.uk/images/ro...%20med.JPG

Roman



The limit of stating Gauls use the extra flaps Romans use the extra flaps is I have also found plenty of Roman Soldiers without the flaps; but the primary source does show Romans thought Gaul's invented it so the evidence is taking from Gaul's.

I also wonder about this one sometimes

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich...aelius.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2240/23027...0e3cd6.jpg

Those do not look like pteruges to me, is there any other evidence for Romans using mail to cover places plates couldn't?

Please correct me if I am way off; I partly post to learn if my conclusions/opinions on one side or another is right or wrong.
Dan
Reply
#25
Quote:Those do not look like pteruges to me, is there any other evidence for Romans using mail to cover places plates couldn't?

Please correct me if I am way off; I partly post to learn if my conclusions/opinions on one side or another is right or wrong.

I'm quite certain that those are pteruges. It's a bit stylised, but I think it is fairly clear.
I've seen no evidence that mail was ever used in conjunction with segmentata. It would have made sense to use something like medieval voiders to protect the armpit, but there is just no evidence for it. There is however, some examples of plates that were probably used like a small pectoral over the chest of later era mail shirts. Many modern illustrators also suggest that late era cataphracts may have worn mail shirts beneath scale or lamellar cuirasses.
Reply
#26
Quote:
MagnusStultus post=359255 Wrote:Those do not look like pteruges to me, is there any other evidence for Romans using mail to cover places plates couldn't?

Please correct me if I am way off; I partly post to learn if my conclusions/opinions on one side or another is right or wrong.

I'm quite certain that those are pteruges. It's a bit stylised, but I think it is fairly clear.
I've seen no evidence that mail was ever used in conjunction with segmentata. It would have made sense to use something like medieval voiders to protect the armpit, but there is just no evidence for it. There is however, some examples of plates that were probably used like a small pectoral over the chest of later era mail shirts. Many modern illustrators also suggest that late era cataphracts may have worn mail shirts beneath scale or lamellar cuirasses.

Thank you I must have been thrown off by the stylization.
Dan
Reply
#27
Quote: Many modern illustrators also suggest that late era cataphracts may have worn mail shirts beneath scale or lamellar cuirasses.
This is unlikely. We know that they wore both kinds of armour but I can't think of anything to indicate that both were worn at the same time. Even the Byzantines never wore both until very late in the period - about when the Europeans started layering mail with other kinds of armour.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#28
The Byzantines used doubled mail camails, and some 12th century illustrations seem to show lamellar worn over mail.

Also, from an earlier post on this site concerning a description of cataphract armour:

Ammianus Book 16 ch. 10 -8

"thoracum muniti tegminibus et limbis ferreis cincti" is usually translated as "protection of iron breast-plates, and girdled with belts of iron". However, limbis is not a usual word for 'belt' in Latin, and literally means "piping" or "border/edge". Could be the description of some sort of combination armour for the torso.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#29
Quote: Ammianus Book 16 ch. 10 -8

"thoracum muniti tegminibus et limbis ferreis cincti" is usually translated as "protection of iron breast-plates, and girdled with belts of iron". However, limbis is not a usual word for 'belt' in Latin, and literally means "piping" or "border/edge". Could be the description of some sort of combination armour for the torso.
However, limbus has a secondary meaning of 'belt, band or girdle', so the implication of the passage is that the body of the clibanarius was protected by a combination of solid breastplate and iron bands, perhaps allowing an element of flexibility.


Quote:We know that they wore both kinds of armour but I can't think of anything to indicate that both were worn at the same time.
Is your objection to the suggestion that one form of armour was worn beneath another? Julian's description of Constantius' heavy cavalry suggests that different types of armour protected different parts of the body (Oration I, Panegyric of Constantius, 37D), which seems entirely sensible.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#30
IIRC plates connected with mail, right?
Mark - Legio Leonum Valentiniani
Reply


Forum Jump: