Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
Ah, great improvements. Good work, Thijs!!
Posts: 1,212
Threads: 40
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:It is OK for me, Thijs!
Being a little knicky-picky, I could say that the belt is rather late fourth-early fifth century in style. Belts during the first three quarters of fourth century were narrower.
Also, If the cuirass is interpreted as a 'musculata' the belt could just be dropped. If it is a squamata then the belt is fine. Of course that's the rub, because the musculata and squamata/plumata more or less merge in the late period. The squamata has a belt, the musculata does not. So since this is supposed to be a general, I would drop the belt, especially since you have the officer's knot above.
Your choice though,
Other than that rather minor quibble, it looks fantastic.
Theodoros of Smyrna (Byzantine name)
aka Travis Lee Clark (21st C. American name)
Moderator, RAT
Rules for RAT:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules">http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules for posting
Oh! and the Toledo helmet .... oh hell, forget it. :? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" />:?
Posts: 3,234
Threads: 230
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
1
Will this be used in a RTR-mod for the expansion pack or som kind of different mod? What's the next one you will modify?
Kind regards,
Jef Pinceel
a.k.a.
Marcvs Mvmmivs Falco
LEG XI CPF vzw
>Q SER FEST
www.LEGIOXI.be
Posts: 2,366
Threads: 187
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
I've never seen fringe on late-Roman pteruges, either in sculpture or reconstructions. I wonder what that suggests in terms of evolution in their construction.
Jaime
Posts: 1,212
Threads: 40
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:I've never seen fringe on late-Roman pteruges, either in sculpture or reconstructions. I wonder what that suggests in terms of evolution in their construction.
Depends on the image.
The archangel Michael diptych in the Met has them, but it may be an anachronism. But it's true, in a lot of places, the fringes are shorter, more simply rendered or disappear altogether. Basil the II still has them on his though, that's 10th C., so they must be around, but that might be an intentional anachronism.
I wonder what it means too. I really do think that the originals were laminate linen and not leather. Maybe the later ones are leather and the fringe is not longer a natural by-product of their manufacture?
Travis
Theodoros of Smyrna (Byzantine name)
aka Travis Lee Clark (21st C. American name)
Moderator, RAT
Rules for RAT:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules">http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules for posting
Oh! and the Toledo helmet .... oh hell, forget it. :? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" />:?