05-16-2007, 03:31 AM
To Tarbicus :
I confess to being at something of a loss as to how to answer your last post. Does your provocative, sneering and sarcastic post serve any other purpose than a personal attack on me ? I could reply in kind, but wiill refrain, in the hopes that moderation will prevail.
To answer your points;
1.Everson is not a good source because it relies on speculation that goes way beyond the evidence. I consider Sekunda interesting and have most of his books, although I don't always agree with his interpretations/conclusions.He is good with original material.
2.It doesn't mean that at all - those are your words. I meant what I actually said -- to have a 'fresh' re-appraisal of the original evidence, uncluttered by later interpretation. That is why I (and presumably) others have not quoted modern authors at length -- many of whom, like J.K. Anderson for example,allow for leather, and indeed think it more likely than linen.
3. Does this comment mean anything, other than being offensive? The original post was simply intended to be light hearted. To use your words,"don't get your knickers in a twist."
4. Read what I wrote again -- I did not say at all,nor seiously suggest, that legionary 'segs' were made of leather, merely that leather segmented armour did exist, and alongside legionary segmentata. That being so, and given that Sarmatian auxiliaries entered the Roman army, one can't entirely rule out the possibility that leather segmenred armour did too - there's plenty of evidence for auxiliaries of all sorts using'native' equipment, and for that native equipment to influence and eventually become Roman equipment.The other point, as I said, was to show how those 'Victorians' reached their 'leather'conclusion and to demonstrate once again the dangers of drawing conclusions from meagre evidence. For another example, see how the opinions on the use of 'manica' have changed in the light of new evidence.
"Enough with the negativity" --Donald Sutherland ,as a high hippy Tank Commander.
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
I confess to being at something of a loss as to how to answer your last post. Does your provocative, sneering and sarcastic post serve any other purpose than a personal attack on me ? I could reply in kind, but wiill refrain, in the hopes that moderation will prevail.
To answer your points;
1.Everson is not a good source because it relies on speculation that goes way beyond the evidence. I consider Sekunda interesting and have most of his books, although I don't always agree with his interpretations/conclusions.He is good with original material.
2.It doesn't mean that at all - those are your words. I meant what I actually said -- to have a 'fresh' re-appraisal of the original evidence, uncluttered by later interpretation. That is why I (and presumably) others have not quoted modern authors at length -- many of whom, like J.K. Anderson for example,allow for leather, and indeed think it more likely than linen.
3. Does this comment mean anything, other than being offensive? The original post was simply intended to be light hearted. To use your words,"don't get your knickers in a twist."
4. Read what I wrote again -- I did not say at all,nor seiously suggest, that legionary 'segs' were made of leather, merely that leather segmented armour did exist, and alongside legionary segmentata. That being so, and given that Sarmatian auxiliaries entered the Roman army, one can't entirely rule out the possibility that leather segmenred armour did too - there's plenty of evidence for auxiliaries of all sorts using'native' equipment, and for that native equipment to influence and eventually become Roman equipment.The other point, as I said, was to show how those 'Victorians' reached their 'leather'conclusion and to demonstrate once again the dangers of drawing conclusions from meagre evidence. For another example, see how the opinions on the use of 'manica' have changed in the light of new evidence.
"Enough with the negativity" --Donald Sutherland ,as a high hippy Tank Commander.
Paullus Scipio/Paul McDonnell-Staff
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
