Login

03-27-2002, 12:39 PM

Salve, 
 
I am currently gathering references in order to portrait, in miniature, a high-ranking Roman officer on campaign, around 175 AD. The idea behind this is to obtain a historical figure, based, on the available evidence, plus, admittedly, the right amount of common sense and guesswork. 
In fact, the idea was prompted by an attempt to recreate how a character like the Maximus of "Gladiator", would look like, but supported by research; that is, not the product of Hollywood concoctions. 
Also, I would like to bypass the usual, often represented, symbolic representation, with the muscled cuirass and bare head; I was thinking on a more campaign, operative, appearance. 
My idea was to dress him with a mail or scale "lorica", with the decorated neck plates associated with such "loricae"; although considered cavalry parade armour, I believe such a thing is possible for a general. As for the helmet, my attention has been drawn to an example found in Germany, Attic type, eagle crest, lions on the skull sides, eagles on the cheekpieces; well, I believe this helmet could be used as a basis, with some more embellishment (gilding or plating, for instance), to recreate a possible appropiate headdress. 
What do you think? Any ideas, suggestions or criticism on the matter would be well received. Remember, the idea is what could be the possible appearance of a Roman general in around 175 AD, based on available evidence and the correct amount of guesswork. 
Thanks, 
 
Dani

03-27-2002, 02:27 PM

Salve, 
 
Scale cuirasses are used as armour on representations of emperors in military garb from the third century on. It seems more appropriate to use that for the body armour of a senior officer than mail for which there is much less supporting evidence. I am not sure whether any helmet can be definitely attributed to an officer by an inscription. Very lavishly decorated equipment need not belong to officers as soldiers bought their own and could acquire what suited their taste. Rankers could go for costly weapons and armour as well. The kit used by officers could be very expensive though. Plinius writes in one of his letters ( Epistulae 6.25) that he handed a sum of 40.000 nummi (10.000 denarii at a time a legionary ranker received 300 as annual pay) to a prospective centurion to equip himself. 
 
Social position was indicated by footwear and both equestrians and senators wore distinctive boots to mark their status. The titles of legionary tribunes refer to the narrow and broad bands of purple that the two high social orders used as a distinguishing mark on their tunics and are usually presumed to have been worn in military service. For the cloak the possible colours are black, white, red or purple, all four attested as used for the paludamentum worn by senior officers. (Valerius Maximus, 1.6.11: ...Pullum ei traditum est paludamentum, cum in proelium exeuntibus album aut purpureum dari soleat... '...A black cloak was handed to him, when it was customary to hand a white or purple one to those setting out for battle...'). 
 
Serving as a badge of office a dagger called a parazonion was used by commanders. Nevertheless they also seem to have carried swords either in addition to or instead of that, even if the weapons of senior officers might not have been too sharp (Tacitus Annales 1.35). Though commanders were expected to be near the action, both to coordinate and witness the behaviour of the troops, they would not normally actually fight themselves even if such action is attested (as the famous text on Valerius Maximianus ( AE 1956, 124, recurred in following volumes as well) attests) 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

03-27-2002, 02:29 PM

You have to remember that back then everyone wore "dresses", not just the officers. Today if an officer wore a dress into battle, he'd probably get a psych eval. 
_______________________________ 
MILES CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS 
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III 

VIRES ET VALOR PRO GLORIA ROMAE 
_______________________________

03-27-2002, 07:05 PM

Ave, 
 
Thank you for your complete exposition... this is the kind of help I was seeking! 
I have seen also the attached reference to another forum, which has proved interesting too. 
Let's see, so I should depict my senior commander in a white tunic, with either a narrow or a broad purple stripe at the hem; it has to be broad if, as you state, he has to be member of the senatorial class. 
Besides, he would use boots in a particular style: I have seen these particular styles drawn in Osprey's "Republican Army" title. Would these be the same in the I or II centuries AD? In the same book, it is said the boots would be red, with black thongs. Would that be correct? 
I imagine "bracae" would be appropriate too. 
I imagine the usual narrow sash would be worn, too. 
Your mention of the sources for scale armour are III century; I think that its use in late II century would be feasible, then. 
As for the helmet, yes, I know particularly elaborate ones are not neccessarily officer's models. But I thought of designing an Attic type helmet, on the lines of some which have been found, dated II century, but more lavishly decorated, as would befit a high-rank commander. It would be conjectural, but possible. 
Weaponry: I had already considered the parazonion, and I wanted to add an adequate sword to reinforce the "campaign" look. 
Of course I know senior officers would not be expected to fight, but the "warlike" , or "operative" image I am for would be probably adequate for an officer on campaign. And one never knows... Caesar had to fight at the battle of Strasbourg, isn't it? He had to use a discarded legionary shield. 
Well, I wait for any further comment, from anyone interested. 
Vale, 
 
Dani

03-28-2002, 12:46 AM

As a second question on this topic, I've seen several illustrations showing soldiers/ officers wearing leg wrappings from ankle to knee ( osprey Romano-Byzantine armies of the 4-5th cent.). 
are there any indications that 1st or 2nd cent. Legionaries/ centurions/ higher officers would or would not have worn such a commonsense and useful garments?

Gregg · 03-28-2002, 07:59 AM

Though from a rather later period than you are portraying (mid-5th C.), there is a picture of a bust of Valentinian III wearing a fantastic scale cuirass in the book, "The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation" by Arthur Ferrill. 
 
The cuirass is done in the standard classical Greek style so it would not necessarily be an anachronism. 
 
In fact, it is the only full three-dimensional representation of a scale cuirass I know of from the Classical period, and I'd love to take a close look at the bust as it might offer important evidence on how scale cuirasses were connected at the shoulder. 
 
Gregg

03-28-2002, 01:12 PM

Salve, 
 
The red boots would be for members of the senatorial class. Equestrians and senators were distinguished from the common rabble by their golden rings as well, a right which Herodianus records as being granted later to soldiers in the third century CE. Breeches, feminalia, seem more appropriate than bracae, full trousers, judging by the second century monuments. 
 
On the subject of Roman military commanders and personal combat see these publications: 
 
Goldsworthy, A.K., The Roman army at war 100 BC-200AD (Oxford 1996) 311p. 
Oakley. S.P., 'Single combat in the Roman republic' in: Classical Quarterly 35 (1985), 392-410. 
Wiedemann, T., 'Single combat and being Roman' in: Ancient Society 27 (1996), 91-103. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Matthew Amt · 03-28-2002, 03:22 PM

Avete! 
I've seen reconstructions of officers with a purple stripe at the hem (and sometimes sleeve) of their tunics, but is there evidence for this? The vertical pair of stripes called clavi were common on civilian tunics, with equestrians having narrow purple ones while senators had wide ones. The clavi ran from top to bottom of the tunic, about from the ends of the neckslit. So they could be equidistant from each other and the side seams (dividing the width into thirds, as it were), or a little farther apart. 
 
Also, the toga praetexta, with its wide purple border, was worn by the higher magistrates (praetor, consul, and censor), but not by all senators, as I understand it. So the tunic should have vertical clavi and the toga might have a purple hem. But are there any depictions of TUNICS with purple edges (or any other color)? 
 
Valete, 
Matthew/Quintus

03-28-2002, 03:55 PM

Salve, 
 
Apart from the clavi on the tunic there may have been other distinctions for a Roman knight. The wall painting of the commander at Dura Europos seems to suggest that the white cloak of an equestrian had a purple border. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

03-28-2002, 05:14 PM

Salve, 
 
The depiction in the wall painting mentioned by Sander is referred to in the Osprey book on the Praetorians. Its author, Dr. Boris Rankov, says both the tunic and the cloak display a purple hem. Maybe the purple stripe, per se, was in fact the mark of class distinction, which could adopt different forms on different white garments? Or the disposition of the stripes could be related to the "formality" of dress: for instance, vertical twin stripes in more formal dress, hem stripe in lesser ocassions? 
What do you think? 
 
Dani

Daniel S Peterson · 03-30-2002, 09:28 AM

Dani, for the period you wish to depict (Macromannic Wars of M. Aurelius?), purple stripes had evidently lost all "rank/class" distinctions. This is evident in the at least ten (and undoubtedly more) mummy portraits of apparently "rank and file" soldiers and perhaps some "junior officers" ranging from the beginning to end of the 2nd century AD from Egypt. Clavi worn by "common labourers" can be seen as early as pre-79 AD on Pompeian frescoes of . As for colored "stripes" on the bottom hem of tunics, they do occur in Roman military art. A good example are the dark red bands at the bottom hem of the pink/faded red tunics of the soldiers fighting native africans on the shield at Trier. These tunics are otherwise "plain" suggesting a utilitarian "military" tunic as opposed to the highly decorated tunics of alledged "soldiers" (but perhaps professional hunters) on the "Great Hunt" and other mosaics. There are also red "military" tunics with white bands, such as the "Hercules" mosaic, though these in fact may be the hem of a linen undertunic. I know of no example in the scuplture of high ranking Roman military officers in which a bottom hem "stripe" has attempted to be depicted. If we are to believe the Historia Augusta, an authentic Roman document, in the mid 3d century Roman tribunes had "red" military tunics, and there is no reason they would not have been worn earlier as well. I suspect these officer tunics were a richer "purplish" red than soldiers military tunics which were likely a duller madder or brick red. Roman officer cloaks, breeches, and tunics are also described as "scarlet", much as the more expensive officers' coats of the British Army, as opossed to the duller red coats of common soldiers. For the Aurelian period, I think you would be most accurate for a high ranking officer "campaign" impression, if the clothing were all be purplish red or scarlet, of richer colors than soldier's military tunics. 
 
I do not think we can say positively that there is such a thing as a "scale" covered muscle cuirass. The scale armor depicted on some well known sculptures of emperors often show considerable "muscle", though this may be the "flattery" of the sculptor, rather than a rigid armor or bulging muscles underneath. I believe these scale cuirasses were probably what the Romans referred to as "Lorica Plumata", of finely ribed scales resembling feathers that were attached to the base of a finely made chain mail shirt. This was probably the best "flexible" body defense available in Roman times, incorporating the best defensive qualities of both mail and scale. My personal armor is of this type, and although heavier than any other I know of today, in a real "ancient" battle I would choose it above any other. I suspect that many real Roman officers chose it for the same reason, giving a greater range of movement than in an inflexible, rigid muscle cuirass, which clearly was also commonly worn. 
 
It is amazing how much prejudice has been leveled at the use of the metallic muscle cuirass in Imperial times, by the same "revisionist" mentality that has similarly dispensed with the well documented red military tunic simply because it has been identified with "Hollywood" (ironically, in reality there are far more white tunics worn by "Hollywood Romans" if anyone cared to look). On one hand, some achaeologists laud Roman military tombstones for their "accurate representation of real Roman soldiers", but if the centurion on the tombstone happens to be wearing a muscle cuirass, then it must be dismissed as "artistic license". Muscle cuirasses were commonly used throughout the Roman period until the end of the empire. That more achaeological evidence hasn't been found (if we ignore the overwhelming pictorial evidence) is due to the obvious fact that such a big piece of cupric alloy metal was too valuable to end up in the trash heap and was obviously recycled. One well-known Roman military archaeologist has even had the utter gall to "redraw" an undoubted, and completely obvious muscle cuirass worn by a legionary on an otherwise perfectly "archaeologically correct" Republican battle scene, changing it to a "now" more "politically correct" chain mail shirt! Don't believe everything you read, particularly in an Osprey book for they are often full of mistakes, particlularly several of the Roman titles. Likewise don't expect to always get the "truth" from even a "lettered academic" in the field. They have changed and distorted the "evidence" as much as anyone else to suit their own agendas. Find the primary evidence yourself, but ALL of it, and use your own common sense in interpreting it. Dan.

03-30-2002, 10:19 AM

Salve, 
 
The SHA is a fourth century document and uses contemporary military terminology when describing events of the second and third century, which should caution one before accepting all its information as valid for earlier periods. Evidence that dates nearer to the period in question indicates use of white clothing for equestrian officers. Both the first century Tacitus' ( Historia 2.89) description and the third century Dura Europos painting of Terentius both document white as the colour of a tribune's clothing. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Daniel S Peterson · 03-30-2002, 09:56 PM

Salve, Sander, 
I would agree that SHA is unreliable in many respects, but when it names a specific historic person or event, it is reasonable to assume this was "copied" from earlier, more reliable texts. What possible point would there have been to "invent" such an insignificant point as a clothing list? If we start questioning even the real Roman texts, we have literally "nothing" to work with, and who decides which Roman texts are valid and which ones are not. I seem to even recall once that Peter Connolly said "Polybius was wrong" (as if HE witnessed the event as well!!!) You will recall that on the tribune clothing list in SHA, there is plenty of white clothing listed too, so this does not contradict other sources you meniton, in fact, they complement one another . It merely lists the two red tunics as military ones, indicating they would be the type worn on campaign (which was the subject of this thread). As I have mentioned before, the debate was never a matter of red OR white, but red AND white, and the latter best complies with all of the evidence. All the best, Dan.

04-03-2002, 09:48 AM

Salve, 
 
The whole point of ancient history is to question ancient texts. Texts must be approached critically and one has to take all kinds of considerations into account in an effort to gauge reliability and applicability of information. Thus some historians from Antiquity seem to project current practice back on the past they are describing (eg Dio and his description of the strength of the praetorian guard under Augustus). In the case of the SHA it also seems that judging by some passages the information provided (eg army lists see Birley, Roman army papers), reflect the current state of affairs raher than those contemporary to the events the text purports to portray. Thus the mention of the tunicae russae militares can similarly reflect the author's own time (4th century) rather than the past (3rd century). This is made more likely as the reference is in one of the passages where authentic documents are supposedly cited, generally regarded in modern historiography to be the writer's fabrications rather than true copies of originals. In addition there is nothing in the text that suggests that the red tunics were specifically for campaign wear rather than any other purpose, and depictions of Roman troops under armour show other shades like white and green as well. When available, it is best to take evidence that is closest in time. It thus seems more appropriate to take evidence that is closer to the period in question here and use the Historiae and the Dura painting for the dress of tribune in the intervening stretch of time. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Gregg · 04-09-2002, 08:53 AM

I think interpreting the Roman "lorica plumata" as meaning an armor of "scales resembling feathers that were attached to the base of a finely made chain mail shirt" (which is the popular modern interpretation) is somewhat problematic. 
 
Referring to Parthian cataphracts, Justin says: 
 
"Munimentum ipsis equisque loricae plumatae sunt, quae utrumque toto corpore tegunt." 
 
Now, Parthia's great wealth seems to have been well distributed among the petty nobility, so I don't doubt the average cataphract could have afforded such an expensive armor, had he wanted to. However, I'm less willing to accept the idea that the heavy Parthian charger could have borne the weight of a full bard of such armor, AND his fully armored rider, and not collapsed after the first few paces. 
 
Simple logic, and the complete horse bards from Dura Europas, tend to suggest that Justin was using "loricae plumatae" to refer to any scale armor. Though I suppose it may also mean any scale armor where each scale has a central ribbed boss, or possibly any scale armor not done in the Roman fashion, i.e. any scale armor where each scale is not wired to it's neighbor. 
 
Gregg

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Roman Army on Campaign	sjsobolewski	2	1,202	08-15-2013, 11:51 AM Last Post: Mark Hygate
	Military dressing of roman high-rank officers	eugene	2	1,628	08-18-2010, 04:46 PM Last Post: Quintius Clavus
	50000 Roman dead in Severus\' Caledonian campaign?	Cipher	14	3,377	08-18-2010, 12:32 PM Last Post: Epictetus