Good helmets for early second century legionarries

[Robert Vermaat]

How can you make an authentic Roman unit from that, save for illogically claiming everyone used "antique" weapons and armor from the middle of the 1st century AD?

Erm.. How do we establish what an 'authentic' unit looked like?
Do we have any record, any source that tells us what sort of equipment was worn, all new or a mix of new and old?
And I don't mean an artistic depiction of a unit with all soldiers looking exactly the same, that's a sort of 'uniform' nobody really believes, I think..
Were older weapons and armour ever replaced when they were still servicable?

[Uwe Bahr]

I have displayed a complete reconstruction of a figure of this time in my Rome exhibition and it is very impressive. You can see it in the RAT archives though I don't have the link at hand.

The whole impressive exhibition can be found here:
[url:2woc3298]http://users.libero.it/sabsab/vitt2003.htm[/url]

Greets - Uwe

[Daniel S Peterson]

Thanks, Uwe.

Jef, yes, it is possible to make a roughly authentic impression of Trajanic soldiers, but those field expedient helmets were probably gone by the time of Hadrian. And then there is only one example. Newstead armors probably date to after this period. And what sword or dagger are you basing your impression on, ones that were at least 75 -100 years old by then? I believe every Roman soldier would want to have the newest and latest style sword and there are no complete ones from this period. Roman equipment was constantly changing as the archaeological record
proves, and so many little things haven't been found for this period, but are critical in order to be accurate.

Robert,
for one thing, when only one helmet dates from the Hadrianic period it is hard to depict a complete unit, unless you imagine every soldier had an exact "cookie cutter" impression, which is now generally dismissed because of the handmade nature of Roman military equipment, and the wide disparity of equipment styles in better represented times like the 1st century.

Yes, older equipment probably continued to be used, but probably not equipment that was over 100 years old. Also, obsolete equipment was probably only issued to legionary tiros and auxilliaries. Changing fashion has alway had a strong influence, and the Roman soldier was rich compared to any other rank and file soldier up to our modern times. We know they spent their large salaries of beautiful, and highly likely, the LATEST styles of equipment. This would be particularly so in a period of relative peace such a the reign of Hadrian.

I will say it again. Until a great deal of new equipment finds are made that date to this period, it is quite impossible to make an accurate reconstruction of the Roman army in the time of Hadrian. It is nobodys fault, we just do not have enough evidence to present much more than the fact that the Hebron helmet likely dates to this period, and that the Corbridge armors were buried around that same time. Would elite and well paid legionaries in a period of peace and prosperity still be using hand me down junk manufactured 100 years earlier? Of course not, and since we do not have enough finds that prove what they actually wore in this period, it is futile to attempt it, and serves no one any good, because all you are projecting is a fantasy.

Dan

[Praefectusclassis]

Changing fashion has alway had a strong influence, and the Roman soldier was rich compared to any other rank and file soldier up to our modern times.

Is there any idea what equipment cost?

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert,
for one thing, when only one helmet dates from the Hadrianic period it is hard to depict a complete unit, unless you imagine every soldier had an exact "cookie cutter" impression, which is now generally dismissed because of the handmade nature of Roman military equipment, and the wide disparity of equipment styles in better represented times like the 1st century.

Which is exactly my point. No 'uniform'-looking cohorts, many styles mixed.

Yes, older equipment probably continued to be used, but probably not equipment that was over 100 years old.

Sure, a 100 years may be a bit long, but then again, back then they had a totally different approach to material goods then we can imagine any longer. I would venture the guess that if it wasn't broken, it continued to be used. Hence, possibly, the low number of things founds like helmets and armour.

Also, obsolete equipment was probably only issued to legionary tiros and auxilliaries.

Sure, but we can't tell who wore it from a find in the ground.

Changing fashion has alway had a strong influence, and the Roman soldier was rich compared to any other rank and file soldier up to our modern times. We know they spent their large salaries of beautiful, and highly likely, the LATEST styles of equipment. This would be particularly so in a period of relative peace such a the reign of Hadrian.

You have a good point there.

I will say it again. Until a great deal of new equipment finds are made that date to this period, it is quite impossible to make an accurate reconstruction of the Roman army in the time of Hadrian.

That may be difficult, because the style of the helmet is (I assume) also used to date the object, thereby ignoring that the object itself may have been in use for a longer period of time.
This is nothing new, the same happens to coins and dating. All archaeologists know that coins can be in use for centuries, yet when single finds turn up these are almost evry time used for dating their surroundings. I mean - it's a curse. Dating is so hard that almost no archaeologist can resist using an object for which an approximate period is know to date the layers under investigation.

Would elite and well paid legionaries in a period of peace and prosperity still be using hand me down junk manufactured 100 years earlier?

If he had enough funds to buy new stuff, probably not, you're right.
But that does not mean that the older stuff was thrown away, either. Many soldiers could have been well paid, but still short of cash!

Of course not, and since we do not have enough finds that prove what they actually wore in this period, it is futile to attempt it, and serves no one any good, because all you are projecting is a fantasy.

Now that I dispute, because even when we know from dated images what was the fashion, still does not mean that older styles were not worn. OK, like I said above, a 100 years may be too old to last, but why not stuff 50 years old?
Not a fantasy, at all.

[Marcus Mummius]

Thanks for the interesting discussion guys.

If one would reenact the period in which Legio XXX was just founded, let's say the period before the Dacian wars(105-115AD), don't you think that a lot of the mid century gear would be suitable?

Best regards

[Magnus]

Yes.

[url:23w13sus]http://www.geocities.com/legioxxxcoh1/[/url]

But then, I'm heavily biased!

[Daniel S Peterson]

Jef, yes for Trajannic period, some of the later Gallic types like the H with crossbars would probably be accurate. What I was referring to was the attempt to accurately portray a Hadriannic group with only one period helmet, and armor that first appeared decades later.

Connolly shows some gear actually found in Romania that is almost cetainly of Trajannic date in his "The Legionary" book. These would be good choices.

Dan

[santell]

How about the brass helmets such as the Aquincum. Any thought as to whether the bracing would have been brass or iron?

[Marcus Mummius]

As the crossbraces are hastily done fieldmodifications I'd say: whatever material that was readily available.

Regards,

[Daniel S Peterson]

Regrettably, of the few cross-braced helmets found in Romania, I do not think any were cupric alloy. There is one school of thought that suggests that the cupric alloy Imperial Gallic helmets may have been made specifically for the Adiutrix legions raised from marines. This makes sense, as iron helmets would have been highly prone to rust in a marine environment. If that were the case, they may not have been typically seen in other units. Most of these helmets have links to the Adiutrix legions, either by insciption, find spot, or both.

Dan

[Robert Vermaat]

Regrettably, of the few cross-braced helmets found in Romania, I do not think any were cupric alloy.

Dan,
Please clarify. By 'cupric alloy', do you mean 'copper alloy'?

[drsrob]

Yes, older equipment probably continued to be used, but probably not equipment that was over 100 years old.

Sure, a 100 years may be a bit long, but then again, back then they had a totally different approach to material goods then we can imagine any longer. I would venture the guess that if it wasn't broken, it continued to be used. Hence, possibly, the low number of things founds like helmets and armour.
Now that I dispute, because even when we know from dated images what was the fashion, still does not mean that older styles were not worn. OK, like I said above, a 100 years may be too old to last, but why not stuff 50 years old?
Not a fantasy, at all.

For comparison.

In the Dutch Army Cuirassier helmets and cuirasses were supposed to last 20 years. The first helmets and cuirasses were issued in 1815. New patterns were adopted in 1838, though the cuirasses were probably never issued, as they were abolished in 1841. The 1st Dragoons were still using the old helmets in 1849. At that point they were thoroughly worn out and were replaced by chacots. These helmets were considered armament and only worn by men under arms.
If other early modern armies have had similar experiences, I would say that we have a reasonable time limit for the use of helmets, i.e. 35 years. This may be stretched, but not much.

[Crispvs]

Just for interest's sake, my good friend Marcus Antonius Celer (AKA Julian Dendy) recently brought to my attention a Montefortino type 'C' helmet which was found in a context dating to the AD60s (not the type 'F' from Cremona), indicating a deposition date a hundred years or more after its manufacture. This does not, of course, necessarily mean that it was in continuous service for a hundred years but it certainly survived for that long before someone decided to throw it away. 8)

Crispvs

[drsrob]

Just for interest's sake, my good friend Marcus Antonius Celer (AKA Julian Dendy) recently brought to my attention a Montefortino type 'C' helmet which was found in a context dating to the AD60s (not the type 'F' from Cremona), indicating a deposition date a hundred years or more after its manufacture. This does not, of course, necessarily mean that it was in continuous service for a hundred years but it certainly survived for that long before someone decided to throw it away. 8)

Crispvs

Type C's are all dated by Robinson from 1st Century BC to 1st century AD, which is rather unprecise. So were they hard wearing or was this pattern used for a long time?