Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news

[Graham Sumner]

Welcome to the Forum Dario

11 Laudes points for a single post is that something of a record?

It seems that while there are a number of people who might disagree with you there are possibly many others remaining silent who might support you.

You may have seen some of my own work in reconstruction art. I like to use archaeological sources wherever possible but in many types of reconstruction this is not always possible.

Combining archaeological sources with ancient iconography and literary sources is extremely difficult. What is very frustrating for us today is that sometimes the Roman artists are very accurate in their depictions of armour and equipment but at other times they seem to show things which do not seem possible.

However this may be more the fault of us rather than the ancient artist. In this I am reminded of a quote by the respected textile historian and archaeologist John Peter Wild who wrote in his book 'Textile manufacture in the Northern Roman Provinces', Cambridge 1970:

"Many trades and crafts which were once a familiar part of the lives of the inhabitants of the Northern Roman provinces were still being used up to a hundred years ago. But most have now been transformed out of all recognition by the rapid advance of modern science and technology. The layman has a reasonable excuse for pleading ignorance of them. But the archaeologist cannot afford to neglect any aspect of the work of the ancient craftsman simply because he does not immediately understand it on the basis of his own experience".

How much evidence for leather armour may have been lost in the past or lie unrecognized in museum collections? How many of today's archaeologists would recognize pieces of leather Roman armour if they saw it? Especially if the modern academic view is that it did not exist at all and that anyone who might think that it does is quite mad.

Graham.

[Tib. Gabinius]

How much evidence for leather armour may have been lost in the past or lie unrecognized in museum collections? How many of today's archaeologists would recognize pieces of leather Roman armour if they saw it? Especially if the modern academic view is that it did not exist at all and that anyone who might think that it does is quite mad.

Graham.

Cause the leather worked armour was a theory of the last century (or better the one before the last...) i bet there arent many leather parts unknown of this founding time.
And in the last 20-40 years, the foundings were published in "Jahrbüchern" and similar, so, everyone who is looking for that is EASIEST able to find it.
And i cant tell you, how many works are overwritten with "the leather work of" of "the leather findings of".

So there is a chance a "leather lorica" part is overseen, but this chance seems to me like a Lotto win.

[Susanna]

I think 11 Laudes, not because of the theories, but rather of respect because Dario came here and faces the discussion.

Respect! :wink:

@ Dario: your English is quiet good.

I also would like more sources for your theories than your website has...I miss the "footnotes" a little...

@ Graham: you are right, a lot of stuff in museums is unidentified yet, but organic materials, and there Tobias is right, has been worked over and over, because they are so rare. And public is really interested in "Realia" nowadays.

[Graham Sumner]

Tobias and Susanna

What was your opinion of the Roman leather armour shown in Roman Military Clothing 3? It was found at Ballana, Nubia originting from Roman Egypt. It is dated between the 4-6th centuries.

Organic materials may well be rare in western Europe but you are forgetting that in places like Egypt there are masses of material dating from early excavations much of which has been scattered in hundreds of collections world wide and is not conveniently la belled as Roman for modern Roman military scholars like ourselves to easily track down.

Cause the leather worked armour was a theory of the last century (or better the one before the last...)

Exactly the point of my first comment. That was when the idea of leather armour was not so preposterous because the military as well as ordinary civilians were still using it.

Why did the early reconstruction of a Roman soldier in Mainz have armour entirely in leather? Even the (strange to us) leather leggings that figure wears are repeated in a medieval sculpture on display in Turin Museum and on another thread (help me out here Jim!) Dan Howard talked about leather segmented armour that also existed in the medieval period.

I remember showing a picture of a Roman stone thrower to a number of academics years ago, most of whom thought the suggestion daft even though the picture was based on a character from Trajan's Column. Their line of thinking appeared to be 'why should the most sophisticated army of the ancient world resort to throwing stones' and the scene on Trajan's Column was obviously an artistic error and the man should really have been holding a sling!

Well thanks to the guys at Quinta re-enactment group who also looked at the same evidence and saw other scenes such as those on Constantine's arch and carried out controlled experiments that opinion has now changed.

Most academic objections to leather armour appear to me to be based on the suggestion that leather armour, not just leather lorica segmentata, did not exist because it would not be practical rather than because none has ever been found.


I think even modern experiments like those carried out by Ars Dimicandi and others have at least proved that it is possible and practical so we should keep an open mind on this leather armour debate which we will not resolve by simply rejecting it.

P.S Tobias, when you see my new book you might indeed think you have won the lotto! :wink:

Graham.

[Tib. Gabinius]

Tobias and Susanna

What was your opinion of the Roman leather armour shown in Roman Military Clothing 3? It was found at Ballana, Nubia originting from Roman Egypt. It is dated between the 4-6th centuries.

Right now all my books are ready to be moved to my new home, so i m aint able to watch for what you mean exactly, but i never denied organic armors, like you can read in the postings before. I know the Garara examples really good, and i know they are made of corocdile and turtelhide, and they ARENt looking like segmentatae.

Organic materials may well be rare in western Europe but you are forgetting that in places like Egypt there are masses of material dating from early excavations much of which has been scattered in hundreds of collections world wide and is not conveniently la belled as Roman for modern Roman military scholars like ourselves to easily track down.

So you speculate that a collector took parts of a segmentata? Or do you mean he took something whole? The best textile conservation is caused by the clima of northern africa, and if i take a look at the problems egypt made the english fearing something there will be stolen, and the prestige those get, who published about things like Fayum, i can believe, but only hard believe theres a little chance that something like this happend. So its not like Lotto anymore, its more like 6 of 7

Exactly the point of my first comment. That was when the idea of leather armour was not so preposterous because the military as well as ordinary civilians were still using it.

Still today some jobs use leather protection, but the army, who used real armour already used metal, its not to compare.
I remember that the cuirasses of cavallery in napoleonic time was made of metal, as like their helmets. The light cav. didnt used any armour.
What proofes that? That proofes something about modern armies, not about ancient time.

Why did the early reconstruction of a Roman soldier in Mainz have armour entirely in leather? Even the (strange to us) leather leggings that figure wears are repeated in a medieval sculpture on display in Turin Museum and on another thread (help me out here Jim!) Dan Howard talked about leather segmented armour that also existed in the medieval period.

Why have the not really old reconstruction of a caesarian time soldier in the Rheinsiche Landesmuseum Bonn a small round shield? Dos this allow to make the convers result: the scuta of Caesar were small, convex and round?

I remember showing a picture of a Roman stone thrower to a number of academics years ago, most of whom thought the suggestion daft even though the picture was based on a character from Trajan's Column. Their line (...)
Well thanks to the guys at Quinta re-enactment group who also looked at the same evidence and saw other scenes such as those on Constantine's arch and carried out controlled experiments that opinion has now changed.

I cant follow you and the connection to right now.
If you mean there were doubt about using the slings, so i can name you german articles from 1899 till today where its clear said, that there were never doubts about that... So it was perhaps a discussion under scientist, but nothing like the situation about leather seg. today.

Most academic objections to leather armour appear to me to be based on the suggestion that leather armour, not just leather lorica segmentata, did not exist because it would not be practical rather than because none has ever been found.

It also look absolutly unlogical to me to use a leather seg. But for the science its just a question of sources, and there arent sources for leather seg. anyway.

I think even modern experiments like those carried out by Ars Dimicandi and others have at least proved that it is possible and practical so we should keep an open mind on this leather armour debate which we will not resolve by simply rejecting it.

What Ars Dimicandi proofed was the practically side of them, and no one ever had doubt about that they were light and flexible. They didnt proofed that they were used nor the armour-effect nor that its impossible to do same work in metal seg.

Lets do it same way like the pros of leather seg.
Take a look at the crupelarius puppet, read about him in the Tacitus passage and than say me, if he had metal or leather

P.S Tobias, when you see my new book you might indeed think you have won the lotto! :wink:

I'm looking forward to that. When will it appear?

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

Don't rest on the negative leather lorica point of you. I'm not a fan to the leather lorica too but Ars Dimicandi do an excellent work about the gladiatorial art fighting and so the roman tactical formation and technics figthing! Ars dimicandi is the first and almost alone so far to this point of researches reenactment or archeological experimentation...

[Tarbicus]

Yo Graham, is this Dan's post you're thinking of?
[url:n4gptmgq]http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?p=57519#57519[/url]

Personally, I just think the whole thing about leather segs doesn't make sense, especially worn by a legionary. I just don't see the point of it. It's been absolutely proven that manual labour can be done wearing metal segs, and the defensive properties of leather segs, as far as I know, are far inferior. I also believe that any reason for it being used for comfort is merely transplanting a modern desire and physical endurance on the ancients; especially when we know that enduring hardship was just simply a required factor for the legionary, it even being a delibarate part of his initial training.

I see your point about medieval examples, but don't forget that, according to the latest research, the Romans seem to have had better iron and steel manufacturing processes than in the medieval period, or at least up until the 13th/14th Century.

Now rawhide, that's a different story altogether. :wink:

No matter what anyone says about how much they emulate the Romans, there is not a single re-enactor on Earth who has undergone the life, combat training, and physical training of a Roman legionary in the manner it was done at the time. I don't care how much a re-enactment group goes for the real deal, it's just not the real thing, it's only the aroma of it. And, to set yourself up on a pedestal of being "the one and only..." is just begging to be knocked off, especially when you say that if you disagree with their work then your own is worthless.

I might come round to the idea of leather segs in Roman times, but I'll need a lot more than what we see on the columns and arches. Do we believe that most Greek heroes went into battle naked while all of their comrades wore armour?

[caiusbeerquitius]

Hm. I wonder if the Garara armour is leather or rawhide. I mean: Was the armour tanned?

Now rawhide, that's a different story altogether.

I sign that.

[Velite]

Many compliments Mr Sumner.

I fully agree with the words written by Mr Graham Sumner because they are the same words to which Arsdimicandi is inspired. AD has worked in these years with this mental predisposition, with this mental opening.

For us it is the correct road to cross.

Valete

[mcbishop]

Why did the early reconstruction of a Roman soldier in Mainz have armour entirely in leather? Even the (strange to us) leather leggings that figure wears are repeated in a medieval sculpture on display in Turin Museum and on another thread (help me out here Jim!)

Assuming that is not a rhetorical question... because Ludwig Lindenschmit (pater) interpreted the tombstone of Crispus from Wiesbaden rather literally and assumed the armour to be leather (those dinky little frilly shorts turned up on the Airfix legionaries many years later!) and it was not until Robinson that this was questioned. Interestingly, there were no finds of lorica seg when he wrote Tracht und Bewaffnung (the Osprey of its day and I would argue one of the best, if not the best, books ever written on Roman military equipment) but shrewdly guessed that it must be of iron and articulated on leather straps; he even speculates as to why none had been found (this was nearly 20 years before Max von Groller made the first major find at Carnuntum). Von Groller made the capital error of going back to the Column to interpret the artefacts and not using the evidence of his eyes and what he had in front of him (no Gil Grissom, then). Lindenschmit is significant as he was the first to notice the accuracy of the Rhineland tombstones (Crispus excepted, perhaps!) in comparison to the artefacts that were starting to be discovered at a rate of knots (pun intended) as the major European rivers, especially the Rhine in his case, started to be dredged big-time for navigation.

Mike Bishop

[Graham Sumner]

Lots of fascinating responses with lots of things to think about. Thanks for the technical help Jim you also raised some very interesting points.

Thanks for the information Mike. I was curious to know why the German archaeologists who presumably advised whoever made the model did what they did and based on what. And yes I remember the little Airfix figures with their leather shorts. Couissin too did the same reconstruction but I was amazed to see the same arrangement on the medieval sculpture in Turin. Perhaps even based on the Crispus sculpture or similar versions now lost?

Tobias wrote:

What proofes that? That proofes something about modern armies, not about ancient time.

It proves it was possible.

If you mean there were doubt about using the slings

No, the doubt was about throwing stones.

So you speculate that a collector took parts of a segmentata? Or do you mean he took something whole?

No, I was suggesting that something might have been found years ago then possibly misinterpreted, lost or forgotten. Not every archaeologist is an expert on Roman military finds or even interested in the Roman military. I think Mike Bishop himself has even found pieces of armour amongst old finds collections.

There have also been some finds which after they were discovered started out as being described by archaeologists as something else. Like the pay chest lid from Cremona which became the front plate from an Artillery catapult, or the leather subarmalis from Carlisle which became a tent fragment. There could be pieces of leather lorica in a museum collection not even on public view which are cataloged as parts of a water bottle or something like that. But how will we ever find out the truth if no one believes it even exists? :? D

and there arent sources for leather seg

Well that depends on your point of view and how you interpret the sculptural evidence, which is what we are debating.

Why have the not really old reconstruction of a caesarian time soldier in the Rheinsiche Landesmuseum Bonn a small round shield? Dos this allow to make the convers result: the scuta of Caesar were small, convex and round?

As I said before the Roman artist can appear to depict things very accurately but at other times it is hard for us today to understand what is being shown, but can we always say the Roman artist was wrong? In Gill Grissom terms the Roman artist was an eye witness at the Crime scene wheras we are 2000 years away looking at pieces of the evidence with non Roman eyes.

I'm looking forward to that. When will it appear?

As soon as possible! Hope this helps Tobias

And after all that I only got one laudes point while Dario gets eleven! :wink: I guess good looks has got nothing to do with it then.

Graham.

[Tib. Gabinius]

Tobias wrote:

What proofes that? That proofes something about modern armies, not about ancient time.

It proves it was possible.

To make corps out of leather, or helmets?
Like the aztecs showed us many other things were also possible, and i dont think someone will tell us, that romans used feather-armour.
So this argument isnt usable. Just cause in other times or cultures it was done, it isnt a must for another time and / or period.
We could discuss also the logical problems, but still right now, we talking about evidences, and there arent any for lorica seg. of leather, also the possibility is there, that some parts werent identified and selled or brought without any word, foto and information away.

If you mean there were doubt about using the slings

No, the doubt was about throwing stones.

Ah, ok, now i see.
The doubts were logical, caused by good arguments and foundings.
But other foundings in context of artillery showed something else and ended the discussing also earlier... Normal way of science, like it was in the believe of leather armoured army to metal prefered.

So you speculate that a collector took parts of a segmentata? Or do you mean he took something whole?

No, I was suggesting that something might have been found years ago then possibly misinterpreted, lost or forgotten. Not every archaeologist is an expert on Roman military finds or even interested in the Roman military. I think Mike Bishop himself has even found pieces of armour amongst old finds collections.

An old joke under arch. is: if its a metall shet and have a hole its a fitting plate... As i said, theres a chance for your theorie, but its quite very small, and still that, the facts say something else.

and there arent sources for leather seg

Well that depends on your point of view and how you interpret the sculptural evidence, which is what we are debating.

Not really. A fact is: you cant proof material out of iconographic. But epigraphic and founds will help, and they tell us something else.

As I said before the Roman artist can appear to depict things very accurately but at other times it is hard for us today to understand what is being shown, but can we always say the Roman artist was wrong? In Gill Grisom terms the Roman artist was an eye witness at the Crime scene wheras we are 2000 years away looking at pieces of the evidence with non Roman eyes.

If we take a look at different works of roman artists we will always see many differences between them, also if they are done in the same time.
Thats quite normal, every artist had his way to do and prefer a way to style something. And thats one of the many problems we had through the time, we believed these items as they were photographs.
Its not a question of wrong or right, its a question of style.
You can read about it in the good articel about interpretation of roman iconography at the examples of swords on 2nd century monuments in "Roman military equipment: the sources of evidence".

[Graham Sumner]

Tobias wrote:

As i said, theres a chance for your theorie, but its quite very small, and still that, the facts say something else.

Thanks for that Tobias. It was not a theory of mine simply an observation. I will quit now and get back to what I know best, painting in my own style.

Graham.

[Tib. Gabinius]

If its happend, it wasnt my attention to piss you off Graham.

[Susanna]

Hey, nobody is "pissing off" anybody...*gosh", the internet is qiet difficult to handle in a discussion. Words are misunderstood so easy, you do not know the people personally or see their mimics while saying anything...

Graham, I know late antique founds or leather armors of the Vikings f.e., but we are talking about 1.cent. AD "segementatae"...at least I was... :wink:

There you have no organic piece of it. So, if other "organic armors" already have been found, why not from the 1.cent. a "samentata" (now I am turning this argument style around)....

Nobody ever said that the pure speculation about it or an experiment with it is wrong or nonsense. But as long as you cannot bring it together with a found and maybe also with written sources or iconographics...for me it belongs to the topic "reenactment armour experiment" or something, but absolutely not to "experimental archaeology".

Sorry folks, but the outselling of "experimental archaeology" worries me.


@Graham: where can I order and buy your books?
Or can I blackmail you with CDs that I made? :wink: