03-25-2007, 02:05 AM
The following is from Travis L. Clark's website :
Ultimately we have to ask ourselves this question: Which is more likely, that we have lost a few elite bronze showpieces, or... that we have lost nearly 500 years of Roman military equipment for officers? There were far more officers in the history of the Roman Empire than emperors or wealthy legates. Considering that we have bronze armor, either whole or their fragments, from Etruscan, Sammite, Italic, and Greek sources (and many others besides, going back to the bronze age) how is it that only this piece of Roman military equipment disappeared in its entirety? I think the most compelling answer is that they were made from perishable materials and that the few bronze examples did not survive, but I could be wrong
That's a good observation but hardly a fair comparison, Imo. I've been thinking about this lately.
Sure, we have survivals of muscled armor from the Samnites and Greeks (in modern Greece). But Greece and central Italy are notorious for having few, confined spaces that are suitable for set-piece battles. Both are mountainous countries. Think about it. How many battles of Chaeronea have taken place ? I can think of at least three major ones from both Greek and Roman times. So if you continously have battles in the same places, of course, you're going to find more spoils for archeologists to recover.
Hoplites and Phalangites seem to have worn the musculata far more than Roman legionaries. Now when we're talking about the Romans we're talking about a people who only fought as Hoplites for a brief period. For the post-Hoplite (i.e. legionary) army, the musculata seems to have been largely reserved for those who could afford them, mostly Senators and Equestrians who were the legates and tribunes. Only this tiny nucleus of the Roman army seems to have had the means to acquire hellenistic style armor.
And, most importantly, the Roman Empire spanned an area of some 2.3 million square miles at its height and had literally countless battles and skirmishes all over the place but probably not in the same place twice for about 95% of the time.
Three major differences.
~Theo
Ultimately we have to ask ourselves this question: Which is more likely, that we have lost a few elite bronze showpieces, or... that we have lost nearly 500 years of Roman military equipment for officers? There were far more officers in the history of the Roman Empire than emperors or wealthy legates. Considering that we have bronze armor, either whole or their fragments, from Etruscan, Sammite, Italic, and Greek sources (and many others besides, going back to the bronze age) how is it that only this piece of Roman military equipment disappeared in its entirety? I think the most compelling answer is that they were made from perishable materials and that the few bronze examples did not survive, but I could be wrong
That's a good observation but hardly a fair comparison, Imo. I've been thinking about this lately.
Sure, we have survivals of muscled armor from the Samnites and Greeks (in modern Greece). But Greece and central Italy are notorious for having few, confined spaces that are suitable for set-piece battles. Both are mountainous countries. Think about it. How many battles of Chaeronea have taken place ? I can think of at least three major ones from both Greek and Roman times. So if you continously have battles in the same places, of course, you're going to find more spoils for archeologists to recover.
Hoplites and Phalangites seem to have worn the musculata far more than Roman legionaries. Now when we're talking about the Romans we're talking about a people who only fought as Hoplites for a brief period. For the post-Hoplite (i.e. legionary) army, the musculata seems to have been largely reserved for those who could afford them, mostly Senators and Equestrians who were the legates and tribunes. Only this tiny nucleus of the Roman army seems to have had the means to acquire hellenistic style armor.
And, most importantly, the Roman Empire spanned an area of some 2.3 million square miles at its height and had literally countless battles and skirmishes all over the place but probably not in the same place twice for about 95% of the time.
Three major differences.
~Theo
Jaime
