01-12-2015, 04:25 PM
Ok, long post incoming:
The Trajan Column argument is revoked, light and shadows tricked me.
Damian:
You did not understand my color reference. The pteryges are the same color as the helmet, armor and 'pauldron'. So, if we lend so much credibility to highly archaising mosaics now, and we declare 40 pebbles to be a mail sleeve (which I accept, let it be mail), then we must assume credibility of colors. So based on the same color, it must be from the same material. I'll give you the opportunity to choose: are those pteryges made of some kind of metal (since helmet and armor is made of the same color as well), or are the helmet and armor made of leather (since they share color with pteryges)?
My main argument against the pauldrons, is that look around on highly detailed representations. You can find the same pauldron-like shapes. But when you see armor pattern on the thorax, you always see the pattern on the shoulder parts as well. Scale or mail. And this is true for the 6-7th centuries as well. Instead of speculating a new type of armor, a much simpler explanation is that most representations lack the details. I have provided 6-7th c. representations of detailed pauldrons, they all show armor pattern. If this was an established thing by that time, why don't we have pauldrons? Why do we have the exact same form, only with pattern? Why don't we have this pattern on earlier ones? My answer is: lack of detail. Because when detail is actually there, you can see, that it is just a sleeve.
We have no literary evidence of this piece in late antiquity and early medieval times, but when it actually surfaces in depictions, in 10th c. Byzantium, we start to see it in the texts as well.
You can not expect me to believe, that on the Alter Do Chao mosaic, with soldiers, who sport Greek hoplite equipment and troops are dressed in stereotypic Persian dress, the presence of a pauldron-like piece is evidence.
I can see nothing valuable on the Nabeul mosaics, please provide pictures, also for the Red Sea crossing fresco.
On the Dura fresco, you can only see the pauldron on the left side figure, whereas you see the same pauldron forms on the figures standing in the back, and the pauldrons all have pattern. This gives me the idea of symbolizing an officer, rather than pauldrons. They are the same form, but mostly they have pattern.
We've dicussed the Amazonomachy. As for Low Ham, that clearly seems like a kind of a subarmalis, not armor. At least the pattern suggests this.
Renatus:
I've cited the Missorium, since it represents elite bodyguards and the Emperor, with no actual pauldrons. Shouldn't they be there on a highly prized artifact? (I've seen an old photo before the restoration, archeologists managed to scrape off a good deal of valuable forms as well.)
And the mail/scale pauldrons clearly form a single form with the torso, how can you interpret it as a separate piece?
The Trajan Column argument is revoked, light and shadows tricked me.
Damian:
You did not understand my color reference. The pteryges are the same color as the helmet, armor and 'pauldron'. So, if we lend so much credibility to highly archaising mosaics now, and we declare 40 pebbles to be a mail sleeve (which I accept, let it be mail), then we must assume credibility of colors. So based on the same color, it must be from the same material. I'll give you the opportunity to choose: are those pteryges made of some kind of metal (since helmet and armor is made of the same color as well), or are the helmet and armor made of leather (since they share color with pteryges)?
My main argument against the pauldrons, is that look around on highly detailed representations. You can find the same pauldron-like shapes. But when you see armor pattern on the thorax, you always see the pattern on the shoulder parts as well. Scale or mail. And this is true for the 6-7th centuries as well. Instead of speculating a new type of armor, a much simpler explanation is that most representations lack the details. I have provided 6-7th c. representations of detailed pauldrons, they all show armor pattern. If this was an established thing by that time, why don't we have pauldrons? Why do we have the exact same form, only with pattern? Why don't we have this pattern on earlier ones? My answer is: lack of detail. Because when detail is actually there, you can see, that it is just a sleeve.
We have no literary evidence of this piece in late antiquity and early medieval times, but when it actually surfaces in depictions, in 10th c. Byzantium, we start to see it in the texts as well.
You can not expect me to believe, that on the Alter Do Chao mosaic, with soldiers, who sport Greek hoplite equipment and troops are dressed in stereotypic Persian dress, the presence of a pauldron-like piece is evidence.
I can see nothing valuable on the Nabeul mosaics, please provide pictures, also for the Red Sea crossing fresco.
On the Dura fresco, you can only see the pauldron on the left side figure, whereas you see the same pauldron forms on the figures standing in the back, and the pauldrons all have pattern. This gives me the idea of symbolizing an officer, rather than pauldrons. They are the same form, but mostly they have pattern.
We've dicussed the Amazonomachy. As for Low Ham, that clearly seems like a kind of a subarmalis, not armor. At least the pattern suggests this.
Renatus:
I've cited the Missorium, since it represents elite bodyguards and the Emperor, with no actual pauldrons. Shouldn't they be there on a highly prized artifact? (I've seen an old photo before the restoration, archeologists managed to scrape off a good deal of valuable forms as well.)
And the mail/scale pauldrons clearly form a single form with the torso, how can you interpret it as a separate piece?
Mark - Legio Leonum Valentiniani
