Late Eastern Roman Army

[valentinianvictor]

I've come to the conclusion that the troops depicted in Late Roman artworks and monuments wearing Attic style helmets and with muscle cuirasses are in fact troops belonging to the Palatine legiones. These may well have been issued with equipment that differed from the Comitatensis legions as a measure of their status.

[aligern]

But is there any evidence for that conclusion Adrian?

Patrick set a challenge which I did not pick up, to go through the archaeological evidence and place it against the artistic evidence. I do think that this would be really worth doing, but it would take time and some artistic ability.  There are certainly some realistic representations such as the soldier in the Roman catacombs who is wearing an Intercisa helmet and long mail.
An area of difficulty with such a work  would be that  some sculptures are realistic, but crude, some are heavily classicised, some have elements of realism an elements of classicisation and some are conventionalisations.
The lorica segmentata on Trajan's column does not match to what archaeology actually finds, that on the column of Marcus Aurelius even less so. Helmets on both columns are altered to be smaller and neater and have features such as cheek pieces are cut down and have the shapes changed.  Shields on the column are tile shaped , but reduced in size. Interestingly the Tropaeum of Trajan which is in the realistic but crude category shows soldiers radically different from those on the column in Rome.

In the period that Adrian is addressing quite a few Roman  helmets are found. They appear to follow two main types, the Intercisa , with two hemispherical bowls and a central ridge and the Fayyum type of Spangenhelm. It is entirely possible that Attic style helmets existed in the fourth century, but I am unaware of any being found and there are enough Intecisas and spangenhelms to say that they are the norm types. There is also good evidence that helmet shapes may be classicised, that is given attic features, even when other elements of the armour are more realistically shown.  I think this is exemplified by the Carolingian 'morion' style helmets which are very likely to be more to do with ideas of what warriors ought to look like in a world that looked back to Rome for legitimacy.

As an interesting example, go look at the representation of Persians on the arch of Severus and those on Persian monuments. The Roman reliefs show the Persians as unarmoured with floppy hats and hexagonal shields. I am not against that as being near to say hillmen infantry on the Persian side, but where are the armoured cavalry present in large quantities in the Persian army.
To return to the column of Trajan, what is the relationship between the trophies on the bottom of the column and that of the figures on the spiral scenes. The trophies contain some fantastical and impractical items and some that are quite practical. The practical helmets and body armours do not appear on the spiral scenes. Decebalus and his nobles are shown unarmoured, which is extrememly unlikely.
Doubtless Adrian has some better evidence than simply looking at the 4th century reliefs and deciding that what others see as classicisation is actually realistic. He will have a line of logic and it will ge good to see it.
Roy

[Erpingham]

In the period that Adrian is addressing quite a few Roman  helmets are found. They appear to follow two main types, the Intercisa , with two hemispherical bowls and a central ridge and the Fayyum type of Spangenhelm.

I am reminded of our conversation about so-called "Gothic" helmets for sale on e-bay.  I think Duncan identified these as a separate but similar lineage to spangenhelms.  So could this type of cross-banded helmet have been around in the Late Roman army?

[valentinianvictor]

I have no concrete evidence other than observing that people tend to depict what are the 'ideal' in artworks or monuments. The ideal at that time I would have thought would have been the Palatine troops. Now, I fully understand that scupturers used pattern books, I've actually seen an artwork depicting such a thing. But even so, we do see the troops that are depicted tend to be wearing armour and bearing arms contemporary to the works.

There are just too many artworks and monumental works showing troops in attic style helmets and muscle cuirasses to dismiss them out of hand.

As to the physical evidence. I would suggest that the amount of helmets and body armour plus weapon remains that have been discovered so far probably does not amount to more than 1% of the potential that could have existed say between 300AD and 400AD. Who knows what else has perished to the ravages of time the last 1700 years?

[Patrick Waterson]

It seems to me that whether the portrayals on question are realistic or idealised, the first and perhaps foremost question is whether they are intended to depict palatini.  Have we any good reasons for thinking they are not?

If we can agree that an Attic helmet and a muscled cuirass signify palatini, we can then move on to consider whether or not the representation is likely to be accurate, bearing in mind both the content and the paucity of such archaeological evidence as we possess for the period.

[Erpingham]

It seems to me that whether the portrayals on question are realistic or idealised, the first and perhaps foremost question is whether they are intended to depict palatini.  Have we any good reasons for thinking they are not?

Perhaps one route would be to look at the distribution of the images.  Are attic helmet/ muscled cuirass types more commonly found in contexts where there were palatini or are they more broadly spread.  The latter would suggest that we are looking at stylised images, rather than attempts to depict soldiers as seen.

[aligern]

We find Intercisa helmets that are highly decorated and look as though they belong to officers or rather superior units. These helmets with cheekpieces and neck guards are are definitely less expensive to manufacture than earlier helmets. This has been credited to the third century when the army grew substantially in size so there were more troops to equip and less money available.   IMO it is likely that the palatini wore decorated versions of the Intercisa or the spangenhelm and that the artist 'atticised them' . For examples of this see the figures from the Piazza Armerina mosaics.
Attic helmets are made from one metal sheet and are IIRC spun from the sheet. They are thus much easier to make from bronze than iron.  Presuming that the spinning technology existed it would be quite a difference to produce a one piece bowl from the mechanics of the two four and six bowl helmets that are found.

The number of helmets we do find is tiny, but it is indicative that they are all of multi part construction.
Now I could believe that a guard unit such as the scholar might have something very fancy, but not the palatine legions and auxilia as that is thousands of men.

It would be interesting if Adrian would put up some pics or reference to pics where we could see what he means.

Roy

[valentinianvictor]

I've put some links to some very interesting discussions on RAT which go someway I hope to support my theory-

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/322524-santa-maggiore-mosaic.html

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/287105-4th-century-gear.html?limitstart=0&start=15

[aligern]

I went and looked, though I think I had seen the discussion before. Interestingly both key views are represented, that the helmets in the artworks at Santa Maria Maggiore (which I have visited and thought to be mainly Hellenistic in inspiration) are either Intercisa models classicised, or accurate representations of models of helmet current in the Vth century.

I don't think that debate can be resolved other than by looking at  artistic representations that precede and surround the mosaics in date and comparing them with the real kit that has been excavated. One of the contributors makes a point about a synagogue representation from the third century IIRC and posts a picture of an actual helmet. If one did not have the real piece to look at then it would be easy to imagine that the helmet was quite differently constructed.

Incidentally, I agree with the gentleman who sees in the SMM mosaics the originals of the morion like Carolingian helmets shown in ninth century art, though I do not think it is necessarily those specific mosaics as there are other representations that have crested helmets with pointed peaks applied by the artist to 'atticise' them and make them properly classical.

Roy

[valentinianvictor]

The issue I have is that at its  peak the Late Roman army numbered anywhere between 400,000 and 600,000 men strong (which may well have included riverine and naval units, limitanae etc). How many Late Roman helmets have actually been found, 100?, 200? Certainly less than a 1000, so we have found less than 1% of the total number of helmets that potentially could have been in use, and that does not take into account replacement helmets, spares etc so the total number of helmets that could have been in use between 300AD and 400AD may have run into several million.

It will likely be the case that it will take a very lucky, chance find now that will turn up a helmet which looks like those in the art/monumental works.

[Erpingham]

It is a bit more complicated than just numbers though.  We rarely have but a fraction of the weapons used in ancient conflict.  The question is about representativeness.  Do we have enough, from a wide enough distribution and representing a status range, to suggest we have a reprentative cross section of Late Roman helmet types?

[aligern]

We do have a representative selection , because Intercisas are found on the Rhine, on tne Daube and in the East and are also represented in art. Interestingly the Intercisas represented in art are associated with long coats of mail and there are some very good reasons why such mail armours represent the standard Late Roman protection.
I have become deeply suspicious of representations of Late Antique troops in armour with pteruges because there is so little corroborative evidence. Mail, however, is backed up by the description of long mail coats in the Strategikon.

Roy

[Salostar]

I'm away from the forums for a year and come back to some interesting reading!

After some long consideration (and going from employed to unemployed to temp to permanent) I've settled on starting an Early Byzantine. I'm currently reading Byzantium at war and would welcome suggestions for some more reading material.

[Mark G]

Ostrogorsky

[Duncan Head]

Have you read Ilkke Syvanne's The Age of Hippotoxotai? I'm not sure where to recommend getting it, though.

Armen Ayvazyan's The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire is relevant, but as I said on another thread:

A curious little book made up of two almost unconnected essays, one about the Armenian revolt of 538-9 (in which the Byzantine general Sittas was killed); the other questioning why the Armenians aren't listed among the enemy nations in the Strategikon  (the answer being, it seems, "they weren't actually enemies at the time" - I feel this one doesn't really tell us much).

The third of the Osprey Roman Military Clothing titles will be helpful for painting, though some of the more exotic reconstructions might best be handled with caution.