Roman arms and armour

The paper analyzes the decoration of Roman weapons during the era of the Principate. The author considers the decoration of weapons and armor containing subjects and motives that are associated with the Imperial cult and Imperial propaganda.

Книга посвящена эволюции римского декорированного доспеха в эпоху принципата. Это первое масштабное исследование римских доспехов на русском языке, являющееся плодом двадцатилетних изысканий автора.
      Изучение античного оружия и его декора в свете современных подходов не может ограничиваться только рассмотрением эволюции самого комплекса вооружения, но предполагает обращение к таким актуальным общеисторическим вопросам, как древние технологии, кросс-культурные коммуникации, ценностные представления, идеология и религия военнослужащих. Несмотря на довольно значительное количество специальных работ, посвящённых этой категории вооружения, исследования сосредоточены на узкой группе предметов, которые выделяются как применявшиеся только на парадах и в конных упражнениях. Прочее декорированное римское вооружение остаётся вне пристального внимания исследователей, в силу чего декор римского доспеха не рассматривается как целостная семантическая система, связанная с функциональным предназначением предметов вооружения и отражающая идеологию и ценностные представления римских военных. Однако только такое изучение римского декорированного доспеха позволяет уточнить хронологию археологических памятников, провести детальное сравнение сохранившихся артефактов с иконографическими материалами и данными письменных источников, выявить взаимодействие и взаимовлияние различных этнокультурных традиций в истории Римской державы.
      На основе изучения археологических находок выявлена семантика декора доспехов и её связь с религиозно-идеологическими аспектами мировоззрения римских военнослужащих, а также рассмотрены технологические аспекты производства предметов декорированного вооружения.
      Все римские декорированные доспехи эпохи принципата следует рассматривать в комплексе, поскольку большая часть всего защитного вооружения была богато украшена, а также имела общий круг сюжетов, изображавшихся на нём, вне зависимости от его назначения.
      Декор доспехов эпохи принципата был связан с религиозным мировоззрением римских военнослужащих. Его иконографический мир был крайне консервативен и мало изменялся на протяжении I–III вв. н. э. Его консервативность подтверждается устойчивостью образов и стилистикой их воплощения на сохранившихся декорированных доспехах, созданных в течение эпохи принципата. Книга снабжена множеством цветных иллюстраций, а также иллюстрированным каталогом находок, в котором учтены все известные находки римских декорированных доспехов на начало 2018 г.

Roman helmets with face-masks constitute a category of military equipment that is rare and at the same time spectacular. They imitate human heads, bare or helmeted; rich decorations include mythological motives and apotropaic elements. Moreover, they are often made of precious bronze and sometimes even silvered. Those qualities make them focus the attention both of specialists working on Roman military equipment and the wide public.
Several such masks were found on the territory of Roman Dacia. Two were found in the river Olt and are believed to have been washed away from military sites. Another comes from a ditch of the Roman fort Gilău and has been interpreted as having been lost by its owner. All are believed to have been used as parade equipment by Roman cavalrymen. All belong to a rare category of helmets representing female heads.
However, it seems improbable that the loss of an item of that size and value would have remained unnoticed, and that it could be easily washed away by the river - remembering also the scarcity of such finds both within the province and the whole Empire. A study of religious practices of Roman military allows us to propose a re-interpretation of these artifacts. Rather then lost pieces of parade equipment we should probably view them as offerings deposited by members of the military or whole units to ensure the success of their various undertakings. This not only matches their findspots well, but also finds several analogies in the context of finds outside of Dacia.

Plumbata, mattiobarbula and martzobarboulon were the names of a javelin with a lead weight. It was a part of standard military equipment of Late Roman soldiers. Vegetius, Maurice and Anonymous Reformer describe the рlumbata as a throwing weapon with a range of throw superior to the javelin. Archaeological remains of plumbata looks like small barbed head on the iron stem and barrel shaped lead weight. Their length could vary from 98 mm to 275 mm long and weight from 130 gm to 350 gm. Modern reanactors reconstructed plumbata as a shot javelin with special way of usage. It was held in the tail and throw away by untwisting. Due to the good weight respecting to the small size, the energy consumption during the plumbata flight was smaller than that of the javellin. It helps to use the plumbata as the effective weapon of the first strike and explains Vegetius’s recommendations to this weapon as well.

This monograph is the first in-depth examination of articulated Roman plate armour since H. Russell Robinson published his ground-breaking reconstructions of lorica segmentata in The Armour of Imperial Rome. With detailed discussion of all the significant evidence (including previously unpublished material), the book looks at each of the principal types, using photographs and scale drawings of original finds, alongside full-sized physical and specially-prepared computer-generated reconstructions. It examines the origins of this form of armour, its strengths and weaknesses, a wide range of technical details, together with practical aspects relating to its reproduction.

a small paper i wrote about the amount of effort needed to maintain replica roman armour, but doing it and urged to compare the repairs found on original lorical segmentarta armour pieces. Therefore this paper shows the simularities between experimental archaeology and original armour parts.

The coat of mail from Vimose (Funen, Denmark) is extraordinarily well preserved for an artefact from the Roman Iron Age. Examination demonstrates that its construction is similar to that of the Roman tunic and differs from later medieval mail shirts. The fixtures for regulating the neck opening appear a local Germanic phenomenon. The blend of Germanic and Roman elements in the Vimose coat is evidence for local manufacture of mail armour in the Barbaricum.

The study is focussed on a (then) innovative intercultural and interdisciplinary comparison between sword-culture in Europe and Japan. It contains the first published  results of a direct comparison between blade surfaces on medieval Japanese and Merovingian Period European sword-blades polished in the traditional Japanese manner. In this context the crucial role of surface-technology by grinding and polishing for functional sword-blades is highlighted in detail for the first time. There is an English and a Japanese summary contained.

It is possible to view an unusual object in the display showing Roman military equipment at the permanent exhibit of the Intecisa Museum, a special weapon of the army in Late Antiquity, the plumbata. The meaning of the Latin word is 'leaden', but if the construction and use of the implement is taken into account it could be called a dart in English. With this ca. 50 cm long, hand-thrown weapon the heavy infantry could have begun to disrupt the diployment of the enemy from a distance.

Die vorliegende Studie stellt die leicht überarbeitete Fassung meiner im Juli 2001 eingereichten Diplomarbeit dar. Da nach Abschluß der Arbeit weitere Artikel und Monographien zu diesem Thema veröffentlicht wurden, erschien es ratsam, diese in die Endfassung zu integrieren. Auf die Ergebnisse der Studie hatten diese neuen Schriften keine Auswirkungen * . Diese Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit der Panzerung der Latènezeit, folglich mit den Brustpanzern und anderen Aspekten der am Körper anliegenden Schutzbewaffnung. Helme und Schilde konnten nicht berücksichtigt werden. Der Dank gilt meinen Hochschullehrern Prof. Dr. A. Haffner und Prof. Dr. Dr. mult. h. c. M. Müller-Wille (em.), die sich dieser Arbeit angenommen haben. Priv.-Doz Dr. D. Krauße (Esslingen) ist für die Bereitstellung eines vorzüglichen Arbeitsraumes nebst technischem Interieur zu danken. Die Übersetzungen des Großteils der russischen und ukrainischen Literatur verdanke ich Herrn Prof. Dr. R. Grübel (Oldenburg), Herr E. Bozkurt (Denizl) übersetzte einen türkischen Text. Übersetzungshilfen lieferten Herr S. Schenzielorz, M. A. (Kiel) [Polnisch, Tschechisch] und Frau T. Grübel, M. A. (Kiel) [Französisch]. Für die Beschaffung bzw. Sendung wichtiger Literatur gebührt Herrn Dr. F. Müller (Bern), Herrn Dr. M. Egg (Mainz), Herr Professor F.-R. Herrmann (Bockenau) und Herrn B. Rauchfuß, M. A., (Berlin) mein Dank. Für Informationen bezüglich der Manchinger Funde danke ich Frau Prof. Dr. S. Sievers (Frankfurt), Herr Dr. M. Schönfelder (Glux-en-Glenne) stellte mir großzügigerweise Material zu dem Fundkomplex von Boé zur Verfügung. Die Möglichkeit, germanische Originalfunde zu untersuchen, verdanke ich Frau Dr. I. Ulbricht (Schleswig). Dankenswerterweise stellte mir der Graphikdesigner H. Dieterich (Kiel) vorzügliche Kartenvorlagen zur Verfügung. Frau W. Grübel (Oldenburg) danke ich für die gewissenhafte Korrektur des Großteils dieser Studie. Weiterhin gebührt meinen Freunden und Kommilitonen dafür große Anerkennung, daß sie mich ertragen haben und trotz meiner Launen immer für mich da waren. Besonders herzlich bedanken möchte ich mich bei meiner Freundin Tamara, die mir zur Seite stand und mich in jeder Hinsicht unterstützt hat. Nicht zuletzt meinen Eltern, die mein Studium geduldig und verständnisvoll begleiteten und förderten, gebührt großer Dank; dies möge in der Widmung seinen Ausdruck finden. Für die Vergabe dieses interessanten Themas und das Vertrauen, das in mich gesetzt wurde und nicht zuletzt für die engagierte Betreuung und das spürbare Interesse an dieser Studie bin ich meinem akademischen Lehrer Prof. Dr. A. Haffner zu größtem Dank verpflichtet. Kiel, im August 2003 * Literatur, die nach Dezember 2002 erschienen ist, konnte nicht mehr in den Text integriert werden -sie findet lediglich in den Fußnoten Erwähnung. 2

Our knowledge of Roman armour comes from drawing together three different strands of evidence. First, there is the documentary evidence, comprising not only passages from ancient literature, but also original documents preserved, for example, on the writing tablets from northern England. Second, there is the iconographic evidence, provided by ancient sculptures and reliefs depicting soldiers and scenes of warfare. And third, there is the archaeological evidence of actual weapons and pieces of armour surviving from antiquity. This chapter aims to give a flavour of these strands of evidence, while acknowledging the difficulties and challenges involved in their interpretation.
(Online version)

The paper analyses the findings of Roman weapons and military equipment from Singidunum (modern Belgrade in Serbia), one of the most important legionary camps on the Danube and one of the most important civilian centers in the Roman province Moesia Superior. A rather small but very interesting group of findings provides valuable information on the character, significance and history of Roman garrison in Singidunum, consisted mostly of Legio IIII Flavia members for over four centuries. Parts of defensive and offensive weapons, artillery projectiles, military belts and cavalry equipment dated to the period between 1st and 4th centuries AD have been found within several locations on the territory of modern Belgrade (Legionary camp, canabae, civilian settlement, necropolis).

In the year of celebration of the 125th anniversary the Sombor Town Museum decided to dedicate a special publication to the Sivac helmet, one of the most important museum exhibits and a unique example of a Roman helmet on the territory of Serbia. The Town Museum’s jubilee coincided both with the 50th anniversary of the helmet’s discovery and the 30th anniversary of its publishing, which was one of the reasons for the making of this monograph. The Sivac helmet, however, was until now little known in broader scientific circles even though it indeed represents an extraordinary find and an important testimony about the presence of the Roman army in one part of the “barbarian” territory north of the fortified Danube limes of Lower Panonnia. Certainly, this is due to the fact that the helmet was published back in 1978 in a local periodical in Serbian language with a very poor English summary, and therefore experts on Roman weaponry mostly did not have the chance to find out more about it. Even in studies which published similar material, only few remarks were dedicated to this indisputably valuable find. With a new and complemented publishing of the Sivac helmet, with an integral English translation and quality illustrations, we aimed to make this finding available to the broader scientific public, as well as to regular visitors of the Museum. It was also our intention to point out some of the helmet’s features by a detailed analysis and to reconstruct its original appearance, by comparing it with analogous specimens. Using a restoration procedure and advantages of modern 3D technology, we attempted, and hopefully succeeded, to give the Sivac helmet its old glow back. By means of detailed observation and using modern physical and chemical analyses, we also decided to answer certain questions which had not been subject of previous researches, such as the technology of the helmet’s manufacturing, the structure and characteristics of the material and the degree and nature of its damages. Special importance is given by the new interpretation of the inscription on the helmet which reveals the name of the owner and his belonging to a specific military unit, documenting the historical context of the find.
This publication would not be possible without the understanding and cordial help of the colleagues from the Sombor Town Museum and especially its Curator Anđelka Putica. I owe my special gratitude to my colleague Branko Drča from the National Museum in Belgrade for his always useful suggestions and support. I would also like to thank Miloš Bokorov, associate of the Biology Departement at the Faculty of Sciences in Novi Sad, who performed the physical and chemical analyses of the samples, as well as Dušan Vračarić, associate of the Military-Technical Institute in Belgrade who provided expert interpretation of the samples.

This paper will present all preserved fragments of armour from the " Roshava Dragana " burial mound in Bulgaria. This is the first assessment of its type for this date set. Armour found in burials can be attributed to two or three types; they include the remains of chain mail, fragments of scale framework and badly preserved plate set. This armament was staffed with an excellent quality silvered Roman face-mask helmet. Apart from this helmet, the suit of armament was not Roman, having either a Sarmatian or Parthian origin. The most intriguing comes from burial 2 at " Roshava Dragana " mound where Sarmatian tamgas on the golden pommel of the sword and on the bronze belt's buckle and images of two-headed dogs on the plates of the armour were discovered. The burial-mound is one of the largest of the mounds in Bulgaria in which influential and respected nobleman may have been buried. In our opinion, the most important and respected man in the neighborhood was Titus Flavius Dinis, the son of Skeles of the tribe Quirina. He was archiereus of so called koinon Thrakon – the general assembly of the cities in the province of Thrace. It is possible that villa Chatalka and burial mound " Roshava Dragana " were connected with the Dinis family. Although there is no direct evidence for the participation of Dinis in campaigns against the Sarmatians and Dacians. But some parts of defensive armament from " Roshava Dragana " mound can be attributed as a trophy. Based on the analysis of the remaining elements of the armour, we can assume that many of them have parallels on the Sarmatian territory and in armament of neighbouring regions. Apparently, this armour could have been made in Panticapaeum, since the only parallel for a two-headed dog image, like on the armour, has been found there.

The author studies production of arms and armour for the Roman Imperial Army during the Principate, as well as considers specific economic relations and factors connected with Roman Imperial Army and describes the economic role of the Roman government in ensuring eff ectiveness of the military machine. Moreover, he considers production activities, structure and hierarchy of legionary armory shops. Description of arms and armour supplying system is based on diff erent types of historical sources. Furthermore, the author analyses activities of private and state-owned arms manufacturers and “vagrant” groups of craſt smen. Special chapters are devoted to organizational and technological aspects of arms and armour production. Problems related to the armament production for the Roman army are important for those studying combat eff ectiveness of the Roman military machine, economic and technological level of the Romans, and complex organization of arms and armour supplying. Armament production of the Principate seems to be a complex phenomenon. One can conclude that the main armament production was focused on those areas that have been well provided with the raw material base and had a long-standing tradition of the armory craſt . In addition, areas of armament production were placed in the strategically important sectors of the Roman frontier region. However, regional features in the armour decoration show how products of private craſt smen and their workshops were in demand among individual customers. These workshops of the Principate favorably diff ered from the later state armories, because late Roman workshops performed standardized large-scale orders to meet the needs of the increasing army.

Im Jahr 1981 stießen Privatleute während der Ausschachtungsarbeiten zum Neubau des Hotels Hilton II zwischen der Löhrstraße und der Rheinstraße (Abb. 1, A) auf zwei stark mit Flußsand verkrustete Eisenteile, die sich bei näherer Betrachtung als ein römisches Schwert mit gut erhaltenem Ringknaufgriff herausstellten 1 . Die Fundstelle liegt unweit von insgesamt fünf spätrömischen Schiffswracks entfernt (Abb. 1, B), die angesichts des Termindrucks der fortschreitenden Baumaßnahme von der zuständigen Abteilung für Archäologische Denkmalpflege am Landesamt für Denkmalpflege in Mainz 2 vorrangig in ihrem Befund dokumentiert und geborgen werden mußten 3 . In diesem Zusammenhang konnten immerhin weitere wichtige Erkenntnisse für die Ufertopographie des römischen Mainz und damit auch den wahrscheinlichen Fundkontext des Schwertes gewonnen werden.

Few armour types would have looked as impressive and intricate as hybrid feathered armour, which was in use for the better part of the first three centuries AD. It consisted of an inner layer of mail that served as backing for an outer layer of thousands of small scales, each which bore a midrib that gave them a featherlike appearance. When worn, the armour would have resembled a metallic feather coat.

В статье даётся интерпретация персонажа, несущего шлем мчащегося в бой императора, на одном из сохранившихся рельефов с Большого Траяновского фриза, первоначально принадлежавшего неизвестному памятнику эпохи Траяна, а впоследствии украсившего арку Константина. Эта фигура облачена в те же доспехи, что и окружающие императора кавалеристы из состава equites singulares. Однако, несмотря на это, логичнее видеть в данном персонаже не рядового телохранителя, и даже не конюшего императора, а его личного камергера-кубикулария. На основе имеющихся сообщений античных авторов, а также с привлечением иконографического материала, сделан вывод, что рядом с императором изображён человек с высоким статусом. В ряде случаев эти люди носили титул «хранителя кинжала» (a pugione), что может указывать на функцию, связанную с хранением императорского pugio, а это позволяет интерпретировать кубикулария в качестве императорского оруженосца.
The paper gives an interpretation of a person, wearing in his hands Emperor’s helmet, on one of the
surviving reliefs from the Great Trajanic frieze, which originally belonged to an unknown monument of the
Trajan era, and later adorned the Arch of Constantine. This figure is wearing the same type of armour as the
equites singulares (cavalrymen) surrounding the Emperor. However, despite this, it is more logical to see in
this character not an ordinary bodyguard, and not even an Emperor’s groom, but his chamberlain —
cubicularius. Based on the available ancient sources, as well as with the involvement of iconographic
material, the author concluded that the figure depicted behind the Emperor is a person with a high status. In
some cases, these people had the title of “keeper of the dagger” (a pugione), which may indicate a function
associated with the storage of the Emperor’s pugio, which allows cubicularius to be interpreted as an
Emperor’s armour-bearer.

The book deals with the evolution of Roman ceremonial-parade and tournament armament, mainly with its most representative constituents — the richly decorated body-armourand helmets with anthropomorphous masks. For the first time in Russian-language literature at all, on the basis of attracting voluminous data of Western European studies in this field and as well through supplementing the corpus of artifacts well-known by now with little known and unpublished finds, the author gives both the detailed description of Roman luxurious protective arms and their interpretation. This account is added with a brief excursus telling of the ceremonies where one or another kind of richly decorated armour was in use.
The publication is intended for scholars, post-graduates and students, as well as for all those who are interested in the military history of Classical Antiquity.

Roman propaganda monuments are known best of all and they are still often cited,
especially  in  Hollywood  blockbusters.  Despite  the  many  doubts  expressed  by  modern
researchers,  they  continue  to  be  sources  valuable  in  many  aspects  as  those  monuments,
mostly located in the capital, show how military  weapons were perceived by the inhabitants
of  the  capital,  including  the  sculptors  who  were  working  on  these  monuments.  There  are
many  images  of so-called  Attic  helmets  on  Roman  monuments  dated back  to  the  first  two
centuries  AD.  As  a  rule,  all  of  them  are  richly  decorated  with  embossed  floral  ornament,
have a browband with volutes in the temporal region  and equipped with longitudinal crests
with  gorgeous  plumes.  The  question  arises,  what  are  the  samples  were  depicted  on  the
Roman reliefs? Ho w accurately this specimen have been reproduced by artists and sculptors,
or, perhaps, we see only a reflection of the Hellenistic artistic tradition?
There  are  helmets  with  a  browband  shaped  as  a  vertical  fronton  with  volutes
existed.  Their  later  modification  is  presented  by  finds  from  Guisborough,  Theilenhofen,
Chalon-sur-Saône. The pieces of the I st century AD – early II nd century AD are Weiler-type
helmets  with  a  decorated  riveted  browband.  They  are  the  helmets  from  Nijmegen,  Brza 
Palanka  and from other places. The pieces from Butzbach and Hallaton can be considered as
a transitional design between early and later h elmet modifications with a vertical fronton.
Thus, all of the above finds suggest that Attic helmets with browbands, which are 
often  depicted  on  Roman  propaganda  monuments,  are  not  the  sculptors’  invention,  but
helmets  really  common  in  the  Roman  imperial  army ,  imitating  the  models  of  the  earlier
period.

Mail armour is made of many interlinking metal rings. It has been a popular type of defensive gear through the centuries, and this popularity has in part been due to mail armour’s flexibility. However, this very flexibility today hinders its conservation, interpretation and display. Mail pieces retrieved from archaeological contexts are often in such poor state of preservation that their original shape is unrecognizable. This poses a challenge not only for conserving these artefacts, but also for understanding them. This paper describes a conservation technique for flexible mail that involves restoring preserved rings to their original position and filling in the remaining gaps with dummy rings. In addition to stabilizing the mesh of mail, this measure also aids the artefact’s interpretation. The advantages of using this method with archaeological specimens are presented by means of a case-study concerning the remains of a Roman mail coat found near Novae, Bulgaria. The case-study shows that the choice of conservation technique greatly influences the amount of information that researchers can obtain from this material.

Undergraduate Research Paper, Medieval Studies 510, Winthrop University

In the past few decades the modern understanding of late Roman military equipment, particularly for the lesser-studied 5th century, has vastly improved. The archaeological catalogue of finds for this era has expanded, and more accurate chronologies for late Roman arms established. However, reconstructing the soldier and his panoply relies heavily on another area: Roman art. Although early Christian art is extensively studied, very little of it focuses on the military aspects of late Roman art. Meanwhile, some of the research which has been done can be described as unreliable, with certain interpretations non-corresponding with the archaeological record. The problem lies in matching such armors to the sources, which is the focus of this case study. Styles of depicting armor vary from artist to artist: some are more precise, others more general; some heavily classicized, others contemporary to the time. This paper looks to resolve this issue by both matching the archaeology to the art and discussing the flaws in this process. The gap in the archaeological record regarding the Roman army of the 5th century, and how other authors have attempted to fill that gap using visual representations, will also be discussed. In this paper, the militaristic aspect of the Santa Maria Maggiore’s nave mosaics will be analyzed, and its depiction of soldiers compared to both archaeological finds and other contemporary art.

The paper deals with a unique face­mask helmet, found in 1854 and stored in the national museum in Belgrade, show­
ing cultural exchange. on the one hand, this exemplar was made with great skill in the Roman style. But on the other
hand, the bearded helmet from the national museum in Belgrade is unusual due to the fact that its design and appear­
ance enable us to recognise a combination of several armament traditions: The bottom edge is bent in the form of a
hem and has a lot of holes intended either for attaching a lining or suspending a neck protection in the form of a
lamellar or scale aventail, which is not typical of Roman helmets and applied in the Roman army only by soldiers of the
eastern auxiliary units. a similar line of holes on the edge can be observed on another unusual helmet, found in Bryas­
tovets / BG. The existence of these elements on Roman parade helmets is direct evidence that the owner of the helmet
could be an eastern auxiliary warrior, because scale aventails had been part of some Sarmatian helmets of the 1st and
2nd centuries aD.

Roman propaganda monuments are known best of all and they are still often cited, especially in Hollywood blockbusters. Despite the many doubts expressed by modern researchers, they continue to be sources valuable in many aspects as those monuments, mostly located in the capital, show how military weapons were perceived by the inhabitants of the capital, including the sculptors who were working on these monuments. There are many images of so-called Attic helmets on Roman monuments dated back to the first two centuries AD. As a rule, all of them are richly decorated with embossed floral ornament, have a browband with volutes in the temporal region and equipped with longitudinal crests with gorgeous plumes. The question arises, what are the samples were depicted on the Roman reliefs? How accurately this specimen have been reproduced by artists and sculptors, or, perhaps, we see only a reflection of the Hellenistic artistic tradition? There are helmets with a browband shaped as a vertic...