RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Origin of two paintings?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
AVETE!
I was leafing through book on Romans, when I found two paintings which depict roman soldiers.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h303/ ... tunic1.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h303/ ... tunic2.jpg

I would like to know from which period are these paintings and where are located, because colours of soldiers' clothing look interesting for me. There is no commentary in the book. Does anybody know them?
The first is from the fifth-century Vergilius Vaticanus (fol 13 r), showing the building of Carthage. The second I have no idea.
I supposed that first image is older, interesting. Thanks :wink:
Hi all,

is my observation correct that the upper picture of the second link shows a fallen statue on the ground (compare the statue-like pose)? Then we have a relative fact for the theory that statues have been painted in antiquitiy - in this case very lifelike.

Greets - Uwe
I think it's the man himself (note his staff is lying on the ground as well) and he's been struck down with a holy vision or some such event. It looks like an ancient comic book, telling the story of a high-ranking military man's conversion to Christianity. Possibly even an Emperor. If it were a statue, where's the pedestal?
Quote:I think it's the man himself (note his staff is lying on the ground as well) and he's been struck down with a holy vision or some such event.
I agree. For a while, I thought it was a representation of the story of Saint Paul and Barnabas, but Paul was not a soldier. Still, I think that the story is about a soldier who is struck down by a vision, arrives in a city where a priest is instructed in a dream to help our soldier; he converts in the city, and continues to live as a saint. How many converted soldiers do we know?
Quote:I agree. For a while, I thought it was a representation of the story of Saint Paul, but he was not a soldier.
Constantine? Even though the Milvian Bridge isn't visible and JC actually goes to him, the image of JC sleeping might be symbolic of him not being the main religion. A priest could explain that to the viewer as a commentary?
Quote:
Jona Lendering:2rwm606v Wrote:I agree. For a while, I thought it was a representation of the story of Saint Paul, but he was not a soldier.
Constantine? Even though the Milvian Bridge isn't visible and JC actually goes to him, the image of JC sleeping might be symbolic of him not being the main religion. A priest could explain that to the viewer as a commentary?
I ahve been thinking about Constantine too, although I think it is not JC sleeping but Pope Sylvester. There was a medieval legend that Constantine converted because he was cured from a disease. However, that disease was some sort of leprosity, not an epileptic disorder. I would also expect Constantine on a throne or something, not discussing with his fellow soldiers.
Quote:How many converted soldiers do we know?
Besides an unspecified group of soldiers in the Gospels, who ask what they should do now that they are Christians, there is Cornelius from the Book of Acts. He was not an emperor, but a centurion.

The second picture, however, reminds me of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, later called Paul. It has the same elements as the account in Acts. We don't know if he wore soldierly gear or not, but don't we now think the clothing of the Israelis of that day was a lot more like the Roman attire and less like 8th Century Arabs? He was on a mission to arrest and/or attack the Christians in Damascus when he was himself "arrested" by God, knocked to the ground, blinded, and later told in a dream to go to a specific street where a man would heal him of his blindness. After that, he told the local Christians about his experience. Looks like the same story to me, but I don't claim to be an expert.

That the clothing is depicted in a slightly unusual or possibly stylized way doesn't automatically make it accurate to the time, or inaccurate, either. Consider the "Roman armor" from Victorian times as an example of overstylization, and limited information. Art from a later period, as we have all come to know, doesn't necessarily concern itself with the specific cultural accuracy of the event it depicts; it's more of an attempt to tell the story frequently to those who can not read, than to be a historical record of costume.
Does that say:

DOGMATA PAULE

[Image: dogmata.jpg]

Quote:
Quote:How many converted soldiers do we know?
Besides an unspecified group of soldiers in the Gospels, who ask what they should do now that they are Christians, there is Cornelius from the Book of Acts. He was not an emperor, but a centurion.

Ahh. Could that be a vine stick?

Added: Wiki on Cornelius:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_Cornelius

Cornelius has a vision. Simon Peter also has a vision. Cornelius falls at the feet of Simon Peter at Cornelius' home. Maybe?

More Roman saints: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:A ... man_saints
Could be a vine stick, if this is a soldier, or a walking staff if just Saul, the traveller to Damascus. I personally lean the latter direction. Note that in the third panel he is possibly tapping his way with the butt of the stick, as blind people do nowadays, being led by the left arm by a fellow traveller.

The fourth is clearly a vision or dream of some kind depicted, but I can't say exactly what the forehead spot is afterwards. The overhead hand and golden lines is a repeat image of panel 2, imho. Can furnish Bible location for those interested.

Heh. But they couldn't be Roman soldiers, now, could they? Their tunics are white, not red. (Demetrius slips quickly around the corner of the wall and scurries down the alley, narrowly escaping the brutal attacks from the white tunicites.) :wink:
The stylised male-pattern baldness of the top and bottom main figures is typical for st Paul in medieval art, so could this be a kind of condensed St Peter & Paul thing?`Road to Damascus, Peter's escape from prison, Paul and his jailers?
ahhh great now I've been sitting here tring to read the words in that tiny pic and now you already got a bigger version lol

yes I too think it's "dogmata Paule"

hard to read...

bene sci (?) doces (-is?) vita(l)...dogmata Paule....(can't read)...prisca caelitus...


doesn't make sense though lol :wink:
Quote:so could this be a kind of condensed St Peter & Paul thing
Could be, but a quick read of Acts 9:3-19 makes the panels pretty parallel to the account. Peter probably didn't know Paul (Saul) at the time of his trip to Damascus, as Saul would have had him arrested and tried if he had found Peter in Jerusalem, as evidenced by the treatement of Stephen, a couple of pages earlier.

Just my view, though. I'm not arguing about it. If the Latin inscription were easier to read, it would probably clear the waters. And yes, Tarbicus, I think you're quite right about the part we can read. That phrase, then, would pertain to Paul. What the rest says, my old eyes can't tell.
It's Peter and Paul. Must be.

Note how this later painting depicts Paul as a military man, and how he has also collapsed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saint_Paul.jpg
Pages: 1 2