RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Column of Marcus Aurelius: Odd features
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I've been taking a look at some very high resolution photos of the Column of Marcus Aurelius.
[url:lksolvjh]http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raider7/panoramas/italy/rome/monuments/column_of_marcus_aurelius/[/url]

The generally accepted rule concerning soldiers wearing 'smooth' armour, often seen with dagged edges, is that it is hamata and the paint depicting the links has worn away over time.

There is a bit of a problem with that, whereby the smooth armour is clearly depicted next to other figures wearing clearly sculpted hamata. Also, the smooth armour has different attributes; it conforms to a clear muscular physique, and can have clearly defined folds as if it were normal material.

I think this is definitely leather being depicted, or even soft material such as wool. The men are depicted in combat or battle-ready scenarios as well.

I'm not here to debate whether Roman soldiers actually wore the stuff in battle and these are accurate depictions of contemporary armour. But, can anyone else see this blatant difference as well?

I do find it puzzling why the craftsmen would depict segmentata, squamata, hamata and "officer type" musculata so distinctly, and then include a completely different type of armour. At least, that's what the evidence before my eyes clearly says.

One possible reason that I would need lots and lots of convincing to agree with is that for some reason they didn't bother to put the holes in, as they wouldn't have bothered with the nipples I'm sure.
Thanks Tarbicus- if you knew how long I'd been looking for good pictures of this column.....


And now you mention it, the smooth loricas do look odd...

Cheers

Caballo
Caballo, there are more of Trajan's Column, etc:
[url:1z3lyfy8]http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raider7/panoramas/italy/rome/monuments/[/url]

Adrian, I never saw that thread before, it's really interesting and I think it's something that could certainly be discussed more. Spookily, I think the link I sent you guys the other day is the Ephesus ivory carving Graham talks about in the thread:
[url:1z3lyfy8]http://www.artres.com/LowRes2/TR3/F/P/8/Q/ART22017.jpg[/url]

The two factors that deter me from thinking they're overgarments for hamata are that they clearly show the form of the body underneath, including nipples, and they show no sign whatsoever of hamata protruding below the hemline, but rather have the dagged edges as a part of them.

The former can be reasonably construed to be seen on grave stele depicting hamata I agree (assuming that springs to mind), but it's the latter that puzzles me and makes me think that the smooth garment is the main one. The clear hamata depicted elsewhere in the column have more of a chunky and thick feel to them, which would tie in well with armour of its type, also to be seen in the squamata. The smooth ones just don't have that aspect though.
Peronis,

Also- have a look on the Marcus Aurelius column, picture 2b , third spiral up.

There are some shield blazons that look remarkably like our Batavian shields!

Cheers

Caballo
Quote:There are some shield blazons that look remarkably like our Batavian shields!
There are also clearly troops wearing a musculata (an officer but wearing gladius at his right?) and a seg in that group. A cavalryman in the 5b's fifth spiral also seems to wear musculata with pteryges.

In 5a there's an officer in musculata but with no gladius visible on his right side, the same in 2b bottom spiral, 5b fourth spiral, 10a fifth spiral, all (I think) wearing the paludamentum. That isolates the first musculata I mention as being unique in its apparent representation of a regular soldier, perhaps.

One question that begs to be asked; Are these "oddities" the result of restoration work?
Quote:There is a bit of a problem with that, whereby the smooth armour is clearly depicted next to other figures wearing clearly sculpted hamata. Also, the smooth armour has different attributes; it conforms to a clear muscular physique, and can have clearly defined folds as if it were normal material. I think this is definitely leather being depicted, or even soft material such as wool. The men are depicted in combat or battle-ready scenarios as well.

Can you give precise directions to one of these scenes, Jim?

I obviously picked the wrong ArtServe photo to download (column_of_marcus_aurelius_2b.PNG), as I can't see your "smooth" armour anywhere on it.
And it takes just about all afternoon ( Smile ) for one of these giant photos to download to the benighted North!
(But fear not: broadband is on order, at last.)
Duncan, see my PM.
Curious, Jim (and thanks for the PM).
I see that several of the smooth cuirasses occur in proximity to nicely sculpted mail or scale ones, so it's not easy to argue laziness or incompetence on the part of the sculptor.

I'm afraid our classics library in Glasgow is closed for the summer, otherwise I would have checked what von Domaszewski and his pals had to say (Eugen Petersen, Alfred von Domaszewski & Guglielmo Calderini, Die Marcus-säule auf piazza Colonna in Rom, Munich 1896).

Has anyone else got a copy?
Quote:Curious, Jim (and thanks for the PM).
I see that several of the smooth cuirasses occur in proximity to nicely sculpted mail or scale ones, so it's not easy to argue laziness or incompetence on the part of the sculptor.

I'm afraid our classics library in Glasgow is closed for the summer, otherwise I would have checked what von Domaszewski and his pals had to say (Eugen Petersen, Alfred von Domaszewski & Guglielmo Calderini, Die Marcus-säule auf piazza Colonna in Rom, Munich 1896).

Has anyone else got a copy?
The two reasons I can think of for the smooth fabric actually being hamata are: They are much later repairs and restorations by sculptors who actually did not bother or were incompetent; Or, they do represent small-ring hamata but the paint has worn off, and the surviving sculpted hamata is actually large ring maille of some type, that may have appeared different enough to warrant its own sculpted style.

That doesn't discount Peronis' point that they could be hamata covers, although I do have reasons for thinking maybe not as I've said before.

Be interesting to see what, if anything, the book has to say on the subject.
The column of Marc Aurèle, all in long.

http://schnucks0.free.fr/MarcAurele/marcaurele.htm




Vale
Laudes to you for both that and the one of Trajan's Column. Thanks.
Quote:The column of Marc Aurèle, all in long.
http://schnucks0.free.fr/MarcAurele/marcaurele.htm

Interesting: almost all shields depicted on the column are oval, including many used by soldiers wearing a segmentata. Only on two occasions, one of these an assault on a walled structure, do we see the rectangular shields.

That siege is interesting, apparently the defenders throw down wooden beams, rocks, knives (?), but also wheels on the attackers!

Interesting shield designs, there:
[Image: 65.gif]
I see a group near the base of the column, coming out of an archway! a guy followed by another in segmentata seems to be wearing the lorica you are refering to Jim? The Hamata seems to have holes drilled into it, so this would seem to be something different. How many unknown armours are still to found?
"There are some shield blazons that look remarkably like our Batavian shields!"

Is that blazon actually attested as Batavian? I thought that it was chosen simply because it looked nicer than the blazon our auxilia had used previously.

Crispvs
Pages: 1 2 3