Praetorian Armor

[Arwen]

I have been able to find examples of the Praetorian helmet and greaves, but as yet, unable to find for the Scutum or

the torso armor... some seem to indicate that they had their own design of the Lorica Segmentata, pthers, that they used the Lorica Musculata.... can anyone clarify the issue, please?

[caldrail]

Since the praetorian guard were not a battle formation and regarded as something of an elite, you would expect their armour to be different in some way. Bear in mind that whilst in Rome any use of armour was ceremonial, because the ruling was that no armed soldiers should ever be present within the cities boundaries. Rather like modern security guards in suits, praetorians would keep watch over proceedings in the senate house dressed in togas with any weapons out of sight.

 

I will look further at this but my own guess is that the armour varied only in specific details.

[Melvadius]

There seems to be a move now to consider that the equipment praetorians used did not have any major difference from that available to normal legionnaries with a few exceptions due to them paying for their own equipment and being better paid consequently able to afford extra ornamentation.

 

The one difference seems to be the oval scutum being retained until at least the Flavian period and specific decorations they used (moon and stars seems to have been common motif).

 

There is quite a good composite article on Roman Army Talk here with the main references listed on the last page.

[Kosmo]

Parts of the Praetorian Guard went into battle when the emperor led the army or when the praetorian prefect was sent on campaign so they definitely had equipment for battlefield but because the roman army was far less standardized then we usually portray them it must have varied a lot at least in decoration.

They also had some rich dress uniform used on formal occasions like when they welcomed Septimius Sever to Rome only to be stripped of their expensive clothes and equipment.

[caldrail]

Praetorian dress and equipment appears largely similar to regular legionaries although there was a tendency toward oval shields, and the occaisional use of scale armour. Shield patterns were individual to cohorts and reflected the augustan origin of amalgamated bodyguard units used by commanders in the civil wars. Symbols of stars and moon were common.

 

Since legionaries apparently owned their armour and equipment, and that there was little or no difference between legionary and praetorian equipent, it follows that when dressed for parade or battle there could not have been any significant degree of standardisation among the troops.Conformal appearance is therefore a product of the modern imagination.

[DecimusCaesar]

Ancient art depicts the Praetorians in archaic Greek style Attic helmets and muscled cuirasses. Peter Connolly mentions that it is entirely possible for the Praetorians to have worn such parade armour but there is no archaeological evidence for it beyond the artistic depictions on sculpture. As others have mentioned, Dr. Boris Rankov believed that Praetorian armour differed very little from standard equipment given to the legionaries (except its quality was much higher, of course).

[caldrail]

The problem with ancient art is precisely that there's no confirmation of the style they depict and it might be merely an artistic convention. The issue of 'parade' dress is interesting because although we know that military personnel did parade in ceremonies and civic events, there's very little mention of what they were wearing. partly that's because no-one saw any reason to. If you watch soldiers parading today few would bother mentioning the spit and polish uniforms although even if clearly evident. That's something we expect because that's how parades are conducted today.

 

There's basically two bodies of thopught. One is that parade dress was in some way identifiable by decoration or quality, or that the personnel simply cleaned and polished the kit they already had. We do need to be wary because our modern perceptions of parading come from the pleasing conformity of appearance which may well be inappropriate in dealing with the ancient world. However, whilst our hollywood style perceptions of massed ranks of indendikit soldiers carrying spears and shield are somewhat fanciful, it remains a part of human psychology that conformity is good for certain things. For that reason I suspect the Romans in all military pursuits had a similar line in appearance that other era's exhibited - that a campaign appearance was not exactly conformal and in many ways altered by practicality in the field, whereas on parade some common factor mitigated against a 'rabble' appearance.

 

The biggest problem of course is the lack of evidence for such conformity other than artwork.