I was just reading this old review

http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/hborome/index.html

...of the HBO series 'Rome'. The reviewer, allegedly a professor of antiquities, claimed that there was no evidence of Roman soldiers using Mail armor until two centuries after the time of Julius Caesar. I always understood that Mail armor ('Lorica Hamata') was precisely what they were using in this period and it was the Lorica Segmentata which came much later. Can somebody verify this?

Jean

Lorica hamata is quite correct for the period, and my understanding is that the Romans are thought to have adopted mail during their early conflicts with the Gauls. Lorica hamata would have been the standard for at least a century prior to Caesar's death, and lorica segmentata did not become prominent until the middle of the first century AD.

Before hamata they used a solid brestplate to my knowlege, taking on maille very early in their Imperial stretch (from the Gauls, possibly the Celts, as Celt in Roman terms is anything north of the Latins IIRC). Segmentata exsisted later, along side hamata, and I'm currently under the impression that segmentata was a "cheaper alternitive" for armour to maille.

M.

Jean,

Careful. Most of academia does not believe that hamata was adopted that late but in academia we believe people still are free to write whatever they like if they have cause to do so. I have never heard anyone in academia make such a claim before.

RPM

After reading the review I got the opinion that he had only watched the first few episodes, and even then he seemed to be putting most of the emphasis of his review on bashing the dramatic elements of the series more than the historical ones anyway.

He also bashed the accuracy of the religious devotion displayed by the characters in the series, but I find myself that in every episode there is a lot of religious ritual and praying shown. So I don't think he saw the whole series before giving his review, or he simply glossed over things too much.

BTW, the new season started on Sunday and it looks to be just as great as last year was.

As a note for further thought, I would add this commentary from Steven Saylor, author of the acclaimeds "Roma Sub Rosa" mystery series. To my knowledge, his books are always very well-grounded in the history of the period and he is most knowledgeable. But do note the date.
http://www.stevensaylor.com/HBORome.html

BTW, he says that Cornelia was the wife of Pompey. I had thought that Caius Iulius Caesar's wife at the time of his assassination was Cornelia. Perhaps Pompey had a wife of that name as well, but I don't remember it.

Jean,

I think you may have missed the boat on what I was saying. ONE person hardly qualifies as academia. There are hundreds of Roman historians out there, more likely thousands. My point was you are being too general in regards to academia. Many academics have opposing views on all sorts of themes of history. My point was Perhaps he is wrong, I agree. I think the evidence points the other way personally, but he hardly is academia as a whole. Whether or not academics as a who are out of the loop as far as weights and such has to be taken individually. Arm chair historians and reenacters have a whole series of flaws as well that does not even need be gone into nor generalized. My point was just the statment was too general.

RPM

Hello Jean, Martin Here!

I think the question is perhaps better aswered on this forum... http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/index.php ... log on and ask it there.

I personally am on your side in the Hamata question. There is lot´s of evidence in art and text of maile in use during the first century BC.

Jean,

I agree with point one very much. Just because someone has a degree is not a sure sign they are right. Hopefully they have learned good work etics (likely by getting holes ripped into their work if they are sloppy which one would hope would make them more careful about their works in the future).

I agree that much can be done with reenactors and arm chair historians. THe only problem I have with this groups is that some never have even backtracked a document to its source. I understand it is often difficult to read if it is in latin or anglo-norman or whatever but many times it is just laziness. Case in Point. I met a very nice group of men at a reenactment encampment. They mainly did Hussites. So we spoke and I realized their groups was basically a very skewed version of hussites. Not one flailman, no melee weapons, (no wagon but that is understandible), nothing but guns. So I told him about some sources he could read (including the osprey book even which had not been looked at). I met up with a few of them months later. Not one had looked up any of them, even with locations they could be borrowed free of charge. After a few meetings with them I realized they just did not care about getting it right, close to right or even trying. Luckily many groups are better than this but the point being is each catagory or group has their shady places. I love reenactment. It is one of the few times I think good groups especially can portray somethign that words cannot often. To see a knight in armour astride a horse lance a dummy even is quite amazing.

SO I agree. One question. WHat is Cichlid fish. Excuse my ignorance but I am not sure.


RPM

I have heard that only the Auxiliary officers who offered the heads of their enemies to the emperor wore mail armour. The armour of the legionaries was a solid chestplate, and later plate armour