Recreating a legionair beginning 3rd Century

[Flavius Promotus]

Thanks a lot, friends

That's ok, part of the job here

Take the Deepeeka 3rd century (the red one with the round chape at the lower end of the sheath), but you will have to modify it (Cut of the stupid rings! They belong to a gladius suspension system!). There are a few other things which should be changed, but I am no expert on this.

Be warned that you need a baldric for the spatha - with one of these circular plates with a metal loop on the other side.
You can get some awesome copies from www.hr-replikate.de , but they are NOT cheap, and it may take months until they are finished (unless the trader has them on stock). Holger Ratsdorf also has strap terminals for a ring buckle belt. If you want to invest more, a square buckle looks really nice, but a simple brass ring should do the job, too.

Tunic - acrylic paint works rather well for the decorative elements. Although some of the guys here probably know of better methods.


Theodosius,
the caligaeskippedcalceifavoured-issue is not easy to solve. I'm no expert on shoes and know only the 'what', not the 'why'. I have never marched with caligae (only closed boots), so I can't tell much about the difference. The main problem - by far the most unpleasant thing - is the nailed sole, which can be a royal pain in the a... er... the foot after several hours. And BOTH caligae and calcei had nailed soles (until the nails became more scarce in the 4th century).

I assume there have been many Roman pieces of equipment where changes may have been caused either by fashion, or by utility, or by both factors. I still think, however, that the caligae were replaced because of climatic reasons. Guess it is not impossible to walk in snow with caligae (with 'closed' boots you also get wet feet in snow, but they stay warm as long as you keep on walking, so I think it's the same with caligae), but closed boots are slightly better as long as you don't walk in deep snow or wallow in mud, e.g. when the snow has been shoveled away (sentry duty on the camp wall).

Furthermore, boots should be more easy to produce without all the cuts necessary for caligae.

Aurelius Florianus/Flavius Promotus

[Theodosius the Great]

Sseverus,

I didn't see in your list mention of a pilum or hasta.

You could use either but my guess is that the pilum was still the more common choice.


Promotus,

Theodosius,
the caligaeskippedcalceifavoured-issue is not easy to solve. I'm no expert on shoes and know only the 'what', not the 'why'

Yes, ultimately it's all guess work but still I find it stimulating to speculate. But that's for another thread

[Sassanid]

Hi Sseverus,

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/index.php? ... ail&id=203

The boots shown on the above picture cost me about £160 from a guy in the U.K. They are very accurate, pretty robust, and are fitted with good quality chunky hobnails.

When I first got them, I melted lard in to them, which gave them them a lovely tan colour and softened them a little. Now I just waterproof them every now and again with beeswax. I reckon they will last me on current usage about 3 to 4 years, with regular repairs and maintenance.

If you are interested send me a message I shall give the the guys address. He does not have an web page unfortunately.

Andrew

[aitor iriarte]

About 3rd century 'eyelet boots' I paste here two diagrams included in Carol Van Driel's chapter on Roman footwear, included in Olaf Goubitz's book 'Stepping into the Past'.



Aitor

[Sassanid]

Hi

The main problem - by far the most unpleasant thing - is the nailed sole, which can be a royal pain in the a... er... the foot after several hours. And BOTH caligae and calcei had nailed soles (until the nails became more scarce in the 4th century).

I can confirm that. My nailed boots are very painful to wear after several hours on hard surfaces. Interestingly I don't suffer the same when I use them on grass though. I can go all day no problem.

Andrew

[Sassanid]

Thanks Aitor for the images. That is exactly the diagram my boots were made from. Mine even has the thong in the sole. I am not entirely sure of its purpose, but I belive it helps in the construction of the boot.

Andrew

[Flavius Promotus]

Sassanid: nice boots ! (great overall impression anyway :wink: )

Beeswax - have you ever tried to heat neetsfoot oil with roughly the same amount of beeswax ? Gives a nice and smooth 'boot butter' for greasing leather. It also smells better than ordinary neatsfoot oil.

It also LOOKS very much like real butter, so it should not be stored too close to the foodstuffs in camp, or hungry commilitones might experience a really bad tasting surprise (plus the stuff is just too expensive to eat).
Luckily, this has not happened here, yet.

Aitor, the reconstruction by O. Goubitz doesn't look bad, but the small hole where the laces start is just too small, and was larger in the original boots.
www.legion-regensburg.de 'Schuhwerk' (English version) shows a few images of reconstructions made by Marquita Volken (Switzerland).

VALE

Aurelius Florianus/Flavius Promotus

[Sassanid]

Hi again,

Here is a better close up of the boot.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y102/S ... OTCLOS.jpg

Promotus,

Beeswax - have you ever tried to heat neetsfoot oil with roughly the same amount of beeswax ? Gives a nice and smooth 'boot butter' for greasing leather. It also smells better than ordinary neatsfoot oil.

Thank you, I will give it a go. I to have some improvements planned over the winter. The main thing being a correct tunic complete with clavii. I will be using Simon James' Dura reconstruction "Three soldiers in camp dress" as my template.

Andrew

[Sassanid]

sseverus,

I am on a roll now, now that I have just figured how to get some nice close up images posted on to RAT.



This type of helmet would also be suitable for what you wish to portray. What Robinson classed an Aux Cav E. Current thinking is though, it was actually an infantry helmet. I would avoid Deepeeka E, but their D is quite good after a few very simple modifications.

I have changed the padding method since this picture was taken. It is sitting far too high on my head. The bowl rim now sits at eyebrow level. This also closes the gap between the bottom of the cheekpieces and the gorget considerably.

Andrew

[I have made you look like you're really on a roll, Andrew, and put the image tags in, so it shows in your post. JO]

[Caius Valens]

Hi Constaine here with a question to Sassanid,your 3rd century impression is Legionary is it not?. I was wondering would Legionarys still be wearing steel helms (Aux E) in general and Auxillarys wearing brass. (Aux E)or is that just to rigid.I know that in the 1-2 century ther were such differnces.Also if current thought says this is an infantry helm was it ever a Calvary helm. Your impersion looks great by the way. Take care Constaine

[Sassanid]

Hello Constaine,

Most of the time I am an auxiliary. Cohors Quinta Gallorum was actually an auxiliary unit based at Arbeia (South Shields) during the 3rd century. Our actual impressions are set approximately around the year 235AD.

At this time there would be hardly any difference between auxiliary and legionary equipment. In my opinion you certainly could not differentiate between them by looking at what material their helmets were made from (if indeed you could for any period). It is the case though, that are many more copper alloy helmets finds from the period, than there are iron ones - but that probably tells us nothing more than iron rusts if left in the ground.

On the matter of my type of helmet ever being used by the cavalry. I am going to stick my neck out and say no. The differences between them though can often be very subtle. It is best to ignore any of the present classification systems and judge each helmet it is own right.

Hope that kind of makes sense. I know you you have a similar dilemma in the 4th with nasal plated ridge helmets. Were they ever used by the infantry?

Andrew

[sseverus]

Hello Sasanid.
Great helmet! In the osprey book about the praetorian guard, there is a drawing of a praetorian (time of Sep.Severus) who wears the same.
I'm thinking to stick with this helmet or the Nieder Mormter.
Deepeeka sells the "Auxiliary Infantry 'E' ". So this isn't a very accurate helmet? They also are selling the "Auxiliary Cavalry 'E' (Brass)" helmet.
Is this better?
About the shield, should I go for a Dura Europos ? Or a round shield or an oval shield?
Thank you all for your replies btw ;-) )
Grtz,
Nico[/img]

[Robert Vermaat]

On the matter of my type of helmet ever being used by the cavalry. I am going to stick my neck out and say no. The differences between them though can often be very subtle. It is best to ignore any of the present classification systems and judge each helmet it is own right.
Hope that kind of makes sense. I know you you have a similar dilemma in the 4th with nasal plated ridge helmets. Were they ever used by the infantry?
Andrew

I'd say that when you don't have much choice, it hardly matters what outfit you're in.
Andrew, I have no doubts myself that your helmet was sometimes used by cavalrymen. As I have no doubts that ridge helmets with a nasal (Berkasovo-types) were sometimes used by infantry, even when it makes much more sense to suppose that the cheaper types (Intercisa) were more likely to have been used for the infantry.
I can't tell for sure who they were designed for, nor do we have any information that any type was distributed to either cavalry or infantry. Of some helmets we know this, but who can tell which helmet was worn by whom?

[Nathan Ross]

What Robinson classed an Aux Cav E. Current thinking is though, it was actually an infantry helmet.

It's questions like this that make the 3rd century such an interesting period to study! If I'm not mistaken, until fairly recently it was believed in some quarters that legionaries of the era commonly wore no armour at all - based, I suppose, on the fashion for representing figures this way on grave stelae, and the lack of archeological evidence for armour etc. Nowadays the pendulum seems to have swung the other way, and the consensus for the 3rd century 'look' is very heavy armour, manicae, greaves, 'Neiderbieber' helmets... This, I'm guessing, is mainly due to the proper study of the Dura Europos finds, and the dissemination of that study - remains of all the above items, together with fragments of (Newstead?) segmentata having been found there, together with the famous shields (I confess I'm a bit unsure of what was or was not found at Dura, however, as I can't afford to shell out for Simon James' 'Final Report' book, so most of what I'm going on is hearsay!)

It might be rather obvious, although hasn't been mentioned yet - a good basic resource for the period is the recent Osprey title 'Imperial Roman Legionary: AD 161-244', which I think summarises 'current thinking' fairly well. It's a bit cursory, and doesn't have any clear reconstruction drawings of armour or helmets, just Angus McBride's paintings, but that's the limitations of the Osprey format I suppose.

There are, though, several excellent reenactment groups doing the early 3rd century, as has been mentioned - Quinta in the UK, Populares Vindelicenses and III Italica in Germany, being auxiliary and legionary impressions respectively - which attests to the period's growth in interest and add greatly to what we 'know' about it (Quinta's scale armour experiments, for instance - although I'm still unsure about those coifs )

What still remains mysterious, however, is the later third century... the aforementioned Osprey book has a pretty good rendering of a late-ish legionary, but it's still a big grey area - at what point did the switch to ridge or segmented helmets occur, and did anything come between them and the more recognisably 'Imperial' (as in Italic/Gallic) Neiderbiebers etc? There's a fair bit of pictorial evidence, but much of it shows strange and unattested types of equipment- I'd be interested to see whether the light which has recently fallen on the earlier part of the century might some day extend further...

[Theodosius the Great]

What still remains mysterious, however, is the later third century... the aforementioned Osprey book has a pretty good rendering of a late-ish legionary, but it's still a big grey area

Exactly. Or the latter half of the 3rd century. The look of the army during the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus.

I suppose the troops already look like late Romans by the time of Aurelian ? Anyone know when the earliest ridge helmet is thought to be dated to ?