OMAN LEGIONARY
(2nd Half of the 1st Century A.D.),
wearing Lorica Segmentata
Corbridge Type 'B'
(Simkins 1974: Plate E).


Project Compiled By:

David Pearson


At The Australian National University,
Department of Art History.
Last modified on 25 October, 1996.


This set of pages presents images and information about the construction, decoration and function of Imperial cuirasses of the first two centuries A.D. and the problems in dealing with archaeological and iconographic evidence. Note: Quotes from other sources and Roman words denoted by Italics

he Roman Empire expended a great deal of economic resources and effort into conquest and expansion through military means. The role of armour was fundamental in this expansion as it played a significant role in the success of the Roman armies on the battlefield. Balent (1989: 86) identifies two common requirements for armour construction throughout its history:

The first was that armour be flexible enough to allow the wearer freedom of movement; and
Second, it also had to be lightweight enough to be worn without tiring the wearer whilst providing protection against opponents' weapons.

These two aspects influenced the evolution of Roman cuirass (lorica) design throughout the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. A central concept to the study of armour is that it will always be a compromise between mobility and protection. The development of this equipment was the result of two main impulses: technical determinism and cultural change. There were at least four major cuirass types in circulation during this period. These were the muscle,scale,mail and segmented cuirasses. The study of Roman armour relies upon three main sources of evidence, each with its own shortcomings: iconographic (eg. sculpture, tombstones, monuments); archaeological; and literary sources. Archaeologists anticipate discovering more about the context of the common soldier and his armour from the archaeological record, whilst the iconographic record would be expected to relate more to ceremonial and parade armour. Because all of the archaeological evidence in this essay relies on texts in English, most of the evidence presented is derived from British excavations.


This site contains:

Introduction
of the topic and what the essay sets out to accomplish.

Context
of armour in relation to the period and military situation.

Muscle Cuirass
construction, decoration, function and evidence of.

Scale (Lorica Squamata)
construction, decoration, function and evidence of.

Mail (Lorica Hamata)
construction, decoration, function and evidence of.

Segmented (Lorica Segmentata)
construction, decoration, function and evidence of.

Nature of The Evidence
indicating the problems of using the different forms of evidence.

Conclusion
and remarks on Roman Cuirasses types.

Bibliography
and links to other relevant sites.


FORWARD TO
NEXT SECTION

INTRODUCTION CONTEXT MUSCLE CUIRASS
SCALE
(Lorica Squamata)
MAIL
(Lorica Hamata)
SEGMENTED
(Lorica Segmentata)
NATURE OF
THE EVIDENCE
CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY

DISCUSSION PROJECT PRESS
RELEASE