10-21-2006, 09:58 AM
Hello Tobias and Susanna
No folks I am not P****d I just should really be painting. You have stopped me again because this subject is very interesting to me and to what I am working on at this very moment. I am never P****d off by Roman things.
I too would worry if I saw a reconstruction that while plausible was not based on any evidence. By evidence I mean archaeological, literary or iconography. I think we agree on that point.
With regards to leather armour in general rather than just the segmentata we certainly do have evidence for it in the Roman period, mainly literary and scuplture like the example shown by Travis in his thread (Where is Jim again) and there are pieces of leather finds which can be interpreted as armour of some sort, like the example from Bellana.
I agree Tobias, if the Aztecs had feather armour it does not mean the Romans could have as well. Because none of the Roman sources show it or mention it and none of course has been found.
Susanna, most re-enactors of first century Romans already engage in experimental archeology of sorts if they have a Centurion uniform. These are usually based on a few pieces of sculpture. There is no archaeological finds of first century transverse crests only sculpture and the later Vegetius reference. There is no archaeological evidence for mail with shoulder doubling this too is an interpretation of the sculpture. The pteryges in leather is again based on the sculpture as well as the decorated greaves. And yet these reconstructions are accepted everywhere. If in fact there is any archaeological finds for these things please correct me.
The biggest objection to leather armour made by Russell Robinson was that it was impractical. I think this was wrong and analogies with other periods closely related to the Roman like the early Byzantine period as well as work by modern re-enactors or leather workers has proved this argument wrong. Of course it does not prove alone that first century Romans had leather armour for that we would need, in fact demand physical proof.
Another argument is that if the Romans had better armour why would they use leather. There could be many reasons to answer this. A bit like why don't all British soldiers in Iraq today wear body armour when it exists and the British Government could afford it. Not everyone on this forum would agree that every first century Roman soldier was equipped with lorica segmentata but a mixture of armour types, so why not leather as well?
The figure of Crispus is clearly not wearing a lorica segmentata but he would also appear to be wearing a very odd lorica hamata if that was the case. So what it really boils down to is, do you think the Roman artists were competent or not in what they were showing? As I said before sometimes they appear very accurate but at other times I am not so sure and that can be very frustrating.
Graham.
No folks I am not P****d I just should really be painting. You have stopped me again because this subject is very interesting to me and to what I am working on at this very moment. I am never P****d off by Roman things.
I too would worry if I saw a reconstruction that while plausible was not based on any evidence. By evidence I mean archaeological, literary or iconography. I think we agree on that point.
With regards to leather armour in general rather than just the segmentata we certainly do have evidence for it in the Roman period, mainly literary and scuplture like the example shown by Travis in his thread (Where is Jim again) and there are pieces of leather finds which can be interpreted as armour of some sort, like the example from Bellana.
I agree Tobias, if the Aztecs had feather armour it does not mean the Romans could have as well. Because none of the Roman sources show it or mention it and none of course has been found.
Susanna, most re-enactors of first century Romans already engage in experimental archeology of sorts if they have a Centurion uniform. These are usually based on a few pieces of sculpture. There is no archaeological finds of first century transverse crests only sculpture and the later Vegetius reference. There is no archaeological evidence for mail with shoulder doubling this too is an interpretation of the sculpture. The pteryges in leather is again based on the sculpture as well as the decorated greaves. And yet these reconstructions are accepted everywhere. If in fact there is any archaeological finds for these things please correct me.
The biggest objection to leather armour made by Russell Robinson was that it was impractical. I think this was wrong and analogies with other periods closely related to the Roman like the early Byzantine period as well as work by modern re-enactors or leather workers has proved this argument wrong. Of course it does not prove alone that first century Romans had leather armour for that we would need, in fact demand physical proof.
Another argument is that if the Romans had better armour why would they use leather. There could be many reasons to answer this. A bit like why don't all British soldiers in Iraq today wear body armour when it exists and the British Government could afford it. Not everyone on this forum would agree that every first century Roman soldier was equipped with lorica segmentata but a mixture of armour types, so why not leather as well?
The figure of Crispus is clearly not wearing a lorica segmentata but he would also appear to be wearing a very odd lorica hamata if that was the case. So what it really boils down to is, do you think the Roman artists were competent or not in what they were showing? As I said before sometimes they appear very accurate but at other times I am not so sure and that can be very frustrating.
Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
