Why were the Triarii differently equipped?

[Bryan]

Nothing at all practical about this:

[img width=200]http://www.syeracars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/lamborghini-aventador-4.jpg[/img]

But many people would love to own one.

[Corvus]

well, if you would need to drive with it in the jungle or desert, you would choose a Jeep
The same with military equipment. Who served in a combat unit, knows that all soldiers prefer to have their equipment as light as possible. The same was the case with the Romans, soldiers wouldn't like to use heavy helmets, if there is a better alternative.
I agree that Romans liked things that reminded them about the past and therefore roman commanders choose to wear Hellenistic armor and so on, but they didn't had to march in it and do many physical activities.

[Bryan]

well, if you would need to drive with it in the jungle or desert, you would choose a Jeep
The same with military equipment. Who served in a combat unit, knows that all soldiers prefer to have their equipment as light as possible. The same was the case with the Romans, soldiers wouldn't like to use heavy helmets, if there is a better alternative.
I agree that Romans liked things that reminded them about the past and therefore roman commanders choose to wear Hellenistic armor and so on, but they didn't had to march in it and do many physical activities.

Maybe I don't want a Jeep for riding in the desert or jungle. Maybe I want a dune buggy. Or a motorbike. Or a monster truck. See where this is going? Practicality is a basis of opinion and what is considered practical to you might not be so for me. Maybe I don't care about practicality, I just want to be unique and show everyone how much money I have. Status symbols are called that for a reason.

Furthermore, soldiering and common sense do not belong together in a sentence. This is know by every single person who has ever put on a uniform. Not in the ancient period, nor now, nor any other time. Military personnel, whether officers or enlisted or what have you, by their own choice or through regulations or by tradition, are often equipped with grossly impractical kit and clothing. For example: Gauls sometimes fought naked when armor was available. During the Napoleonic War time period, military personnel wore grossly impractical fighting attire. Ever see a pelise? During my own forays in the military, I wore a style of camouflage that only seemed to blend in with gravel parking lot and nothing else. None of these were about effectiveness.

I think you might be overstating Roman practicality. After all, these were a people who based major political and military decisions on fortune telling based on haruspices (reading entrails) and augury (bird signs). They didn't have think tanks writing white papers on the military effectiveness of spear vs. pilum or apulo-corinthian vs. montefortino helmets.

[Youngster]

well, if you would need to drive with it in the jungle or desert, you would choose a Jeep
The same with military equipment. Who served in a combat unit, knows that all soldiers prefer to have their equipment as light as possible. The same was the case with the Romans, soldiers wouldn't like to use heavy helmets, if there is a better alternative.
I agree that Romans liked things that reminded them about the past and therefore roman commanders choose to wear Hellenistic armor and so on, but they didn't had to march in it and do many physical activities.

But your definition of what is practical is too narrow and modern. There is value in appearance, and therefore (potentially) practicality. The soldier communicates to his enemy through his arms and armor. The enemies of Republican Rome generally shared some common culture, and some visual and artistic language. This applies to Italians, Greeks, Punics, and the Hellenized inhabitants of many regions. They understood the significance of the Corinthian helmet and muscle cuirass as traditional and heroic armor. So solider wearing such armor may be be communicating:

"I am an experienced warrior, just like the heroes of myth. My helmet and armor are traditional, and therefore you can tell that I have a rugged and traditional warrior ethos. Moreover, my gear is well made and expensive, requiring more care to make and maintain than standard gear worn by others. You should therefore infer that I am a very good warrior. Therefore you should should be very intimidated by me. Moreover, you should either flee or fight with reduced morale as a result."

Now, I'm being a bit literal, but those are the type of thoughts that a roman Soldier would wish to inspire. And if he thinks that it will work, he may decide that a slight reduction protection is worth the bonus of intimidation, and therefore still practical.

[Walhaz]

[quote="Magister Populi" post=360314] During my own forays in the military, I wore a style of camouflage that only seemed to blend in with gravel parking lot and nothing else.

I always thought it blended well with a nice floral pattern, too....

[Vindex]

I always thought it blended well with a nice floral pattern, too....

Nice one, Centurion