Bronze Lorica Segmentata

[F. MAXIMILIANVS ITALICVS]

I just meant that ty same system of plates as was used for backplates could be used also for chest plates.
In that case, where did the two larger plates that everyone believes to be chest plates go?

Confussion I dont mean there wasn´t Corbridge type (or any other with chest plates). It is sure there was classic type reconstructed by Robinson, but what is my (and not only) hypothesis is that "maybe" there could be one another type of LS where the chest plates are missing. Because the known types with chest plates are showed with the types without it.

None of the Trajan Column types of seg have been found...

True and I dont want to say that Trajan column sculpture corresponds 100% with reality, absolutely no, but is based on reality. As I said, the scutum showed there is very short, of different size as it was in reality, but has same rectangular body. It could be same also in the case of LS, so two types which correspond to reality, but to some point stylized. But your theory about difference between auxila and Romans could also be valide.

I dont think artist had never seen real lorica. For exaple many components showed there, like buckles correspond to archaeological finds.

[Tarbicus]

I dont think artist had never seen real lorica. For exaple many components showed there, like buckles correspond to archaeological finds.

Legionaries wore their belts in Rome :wink: Some went on a killing spree when youths cut them.

Why would you assume that sculptors based in Rome had seen a legionary in full armour?

[F. MAXIMILIANVS ITALICVS]

Yea, but I dont think belts but buckles from lorica segmentata, the typic volute ones.
Many legions were presented in Italy, during the year of 3 emperrors, or triumphs, so the sculptor could meet them here.

[Tarbicus]

Working from verbal descriptions and memory would easily explain the inaccuracies in the sculpture.

[F. MAXIMILIANVS ITALICVS]

Yes, but it still doesnt explain why there were portrayed 2 types of LS, one of them with 2 chest plates (which is proved) and other with continuation of torso plates. I belive there could be this type, same as we belived that first type of LS was Corbridge, before the Kalkriese was found.

[Tarbicus]

In that case, can you explain the fastening mechanism for the torso plates on the Marcus Aurelius Column segs. Press studs?

[Tarbicus]

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Don't you find it strange that not a single example of the Column segs has been found amongst over two hundred years of excavated pieces which are spread all over the empire?

The seg to the left in the Bishop illustration (16a), by the way, is clearly explained in the text of Roman Military Equipment as being wrong, and was Robinson's first attempt after he'd mistakenly referred to earlier writers who had looked to Trajan's Column to explain how the seg worked. The version to the right (16b) is the final accurate reconstruction.

[F. MAXIMILIANVS ITALICVS]

As I said it before, I know, Trajans column or another official monuments aren´t 100% credible, but are based on reality. Why is based on reality? Bacause shows roman arms which were real in use, like LS with 2 chest plates, gladius, scutum shield and auxilary shields. They all are idealized, but based on reality.So same it could be with LS without 2 chest plates portrayed here, it could existed.

[Tarbicus]

So same it could be with LS without 2 chest plates portrayed here, it could existed.

Or they may have got halfway through sculpting the column when someone leaned over to tell them that there were only two plates. Who knows?

They all are idealized, but based on reality.

Why is it so unlikely that a detail of more than two plates on the chest isn't also idealised? Why would they even use six plates on the chest when two are simpler, less prone to breakage, easier to manufacture, less likely to let a stab through and therefore a far more effective defence?

Anything's possible, but the weight of evidence points to the sculptors just getting it wrong.

[F. MAXIMILIANVS ITALICVS]

Of course I´m not telling here, this type really existed, I said maybe it existed. And yes, primary sources are archeological finds, maybe one day we will able to reconstruct how it in reality was with LS. There are many things which we dont know, also we dont know if there was just one type of Newstead, or any other type or all about Alba Iulia type.

[Gaius Colletti]

Why would you assume that sculptors based in Rome had seen a legionary in full armour?

Is it so unlikely to imagine that the artists creating one of Trajan's most important monuments would be shown the proper legionary kit?

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

I've heard this repeated several times that the average person living in Rome would never have seen a legionary. Doesn't make sense to me. Surely they saw legionaries and their equipment in Rome. During the Republic the soldiers were landowners who campaigned for the season and then went back home. The Campus Martius was were soldiers would camp and train, at least before it was built up during Augustus. Caesar had soldiers in Rome. The civil war that ended the Republic had soldiers in Rome with Antony and Octavian. The later civil war with Nero, Galba, Otho and Vitellius had soldiers in Rome. Soldiers lived in Rome after discharge. The Praetorian's were in Rome. What is behind this repeated statement that Romans living in Rome wouldn't know what a legionary would wear? I guess it comes from the law that soldiers could not enter inside the pomerium under arms, but clearly this happened a lot in the late Republic/early Imperial period. They saw soldiers in their equipment all the time!

I'm not saying that they didn't take artistic license with some things they sculpted or painted but they had to go on something that was familiar to them.

[Frank]

The Praetorian's were in Rome. What is behind this repeated statement that Romans living in Rome wouldn't know what a legionary would wear?

There are hints, that the praetorians and the urban cohorts usually were unarmored, when patrolling in Rome. They perhaps just worn subarmalis, cingulum, pugio and sticks. Wearing armor and weapons inside Rome was not very tolerated by the plebs. If not on a special mission which required full equipment, like guarding the emperor or in case of revolts. And even in this case, the praetorian equipment was most propably not very representative for the average in the army as a whole.

Also centurions coming to Rome for personal promotion by the emperor frequently or other soldiers on vacation did propably not wear full armor.

There were also triumphal processions of the emperors, showing the soldiers in best shape possible. I am convinced, thats what we see on Trajans column: Soldiers in best shape possible. Not the reality on the dacian battlefields.

Well, there was at least one roman citizen, who most propably never saw a roman soldier personally: Vegetius 8)

[Tarbicus]

Equally so, nobody from the Republic could still have been alive at the time of Trajan's Column being built, and the Year of the Four Emperors was up to forty years earlier. There were no legions based in Italy, while we have no idea how much the Praetorians would mingle with the populace while wearing armour, in and around a city with a population of a million people where it was blasphemy to wear armour except under exceptional ceremonial circumstances. This is the Campus Martius by 300 AD.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Of course I´m not telling here, this type really existed, I said maybe it existed.

As this is going to be your BA-Thesis, if I understand correctly, I would like to point out that you make a huge methodological mistake. You are mixing two topics, which have only little in common:

1: Lorica "segmentata"

2: Representation of armour in Roman iconography.

Especially the second topic is very difficult to tackle and requires a lot of source-criticism, and a deep insight into how Roman art works and how it was made. Such insights are normally gained by students by studying Classical archaeology´s art historical branch ( think P. Zanker, B. Andreae, F. Coarelli). It is a rather difficult topic. If you haven´t studied the methods of interpreting Roman art, better let it be.