Regarding Centurion !

[kambiz]

Hi everyone :smiley:
I've already finished my first book dedicated to Roman history ,"Imperial ROME at War" published by Concord. Good read BTW :smiley:

But at the first plate of this book which shows "Legionaries of Caesar's army in action in centeral Gaul c.52 BC" ,the Centurion shouts for relief and as you can see in the picture below ,His costume is not like the Centurions in EB.

See the picture
http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/26948/2005556362101218475_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005556362101218475)

Centurions of Both Marian and Augutus refroms in EB are like this one which belongs to plate 3 "Legio XIIII make an opposed landing on Anglesey c.60 AD".
http://aycu04.webshots.com/image/23923/2002475964950199587_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002475964950199587)

I think at least the Cohores Reformata's Centurion should be like the guy depicted in plate 1 ,Shouldn't?

-Kambiz

P.S : As I mentioned ,This one was my first Book(E-Book) regarding ROME. Anyone have more E-Books ,So I would appreciate him/her if share it with me :smiley: Thanks in advance

[Tellos Athenaios]

IIRC, there's some limitation preventing something with the Reformata & Imperatoria Centurions. But one of the Romani experts would know more about that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That Centurian is wrong, his "shoulder pads" and his iron montefotino helm are fantasy. His sword conforms to no known example and his long red plume should be a transverse crest.

With that said there are issues with our current centurian, the problem is that we have a limitiain on the number of models we can have. As a result we have two centurians, pre- and post-Marian. We are looking at the centurian as he is currently depicted and making some changes but he still won't look at lot like the picture you posted.

[Centurion Crastinus]

Stephen Dando-Collins has written some great books on specific legions. Also, Adrian Goldsworthy has some great books as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As an academic I'd have to say that both are fairly worthless if you want a genuine understanding of the Roman military, treat with extreme caution.

[bovi]

Perhaps you'd like to suggest better literature?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well I don't know much better literature, most of my knowledge is gleaned from articles and personal connections with archaeologists. Most of the public-access stuff is actually pretty bad. Goldsworthy is OK as a general introduction but he's very vague on a lot of things and his "Complete" Roman Army gives far too much weight to the later Imperial period. It's a good general reference but you have to be prepared to modify most of what he says about specifics. He completely skips over the Camillian period, for example.

Mike Bishop is the man to look at as regards the use Roman equipment, argueably the world authoriety. He has devoted two excellent books to Lorica Segmentata which are about as comprehensive as you can get.

Daniel Peterson's The Roman Legions in Colour Photographs is an excellent, digestable introduction to it's subject and by showing actual reconstructions avoides confusion and the occasional imposibility that can crop up in artwork.

Robinson's helmet typeology is available on the net thse days and is the best way to classify helmets because it breaks them down by theoretical function and period rather than geography or type.

I have used Goldsworthy, and Peter Connolly as well both know a lot about their subject but you need to know some yourself before you can recognise where they're trying to push their own agenda.

[Geoffrey S]

The problem I find with Goldworthy is that in the first place he's an historian, a classicist, rather than an archeologist. When it comes to studies of literature he's an excellent guide, as is witness in his Punic Wars. The problem with his Complete Roman Army is that such matters are more of a subject for archeologists, and he clearly struggles in areas where literature is absent and there isn't an abundance of archeological evidence; hence, he's strongest on Imperial subjects when it comes to equipment and events throughout most Roman times, but ends up skimming over what isn't already well-trodden. Essentially, a secondary source of mostly tertiary sources. Interesting to start with, but for more solid information more specialised works are required.

Still, he's definitely better than Tom Holland...

[Horst Nordfink]

Slightly off topic but, Adrian Godsworthy's biography of Caesar is a great read.

I have another book by him too called something like "In the name of Rome: The men who won the empire" which is a decent little round up of a couple of generals.

Sorry to piggyback this thread, but does anyone know of any good biographies of Romans? Preferably Cicero.

[kambiz]

Regarding the thread's topic ,It seems everyone's agree that Centurion's medel especially for Cohorses Reformata is accurate ,And should be modified if it's not beyond game's limitations.

Thanks to all for suggesting books regarding Rome and her hisotry ,But as I mentioned ,I need E-Book ,Simply because I can't find them in Iran ,Nor can purchase them through the net:oops: So If you guys have some these books in the from of E-Book ,You may want to upload and share them with me. As I get "Imperial Rome at War" from a friend through net and also TPC & Gaiten uploaded some of their E-Books for me (Thanks to both:2thumbsup: )

E-Books please ,Thank you so mutch

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Still, he's definitely better than Tom Holland...
Is Tom Holland bad? I'm interested because I've read a book of him, hehe.:yes:

[Geoffrey S]

I thoroughly disliked his writing style, his tabloid representation of the Republic (focusing on the smutty rumours over substance) and the fact that he walked on an extremely well-trodden path without adding anything new whilst presenting everything as if he'd just thought of it. And that's just Rubicon; Persia Fire was in my opinion even worse, in his attempts to link events over two-thousand years ago to the modernday War on Terror, and again that he added nothing new to existing research. Because it's a slightly less well documented period that book is even more superficial, barely raising itself above the primary sources in many cases.

He's clearly no historian, but a writer, and a bad one at that. For facts I'll look in decent works, and for good writing I'll pick up a novel.

Bit of a rant, but he's a bit of a pet peeve, certainly after I saw him interviewed on BBC. Lord... ~:rolleyes:

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Oh thanks. I read Rubicon and I found it quite interesting. I read it in German so I can't really say something on his style of writing although I found it a bit strenuous. I think for someone like me who isn't that familiar with the happenings around the end of the republic it served as a basis quite well. I hope he didn't say anything plain wrong though.~;)