RomanArmyTalk

Well, then he will have to search on...
I thought the aquila of XVIIII was regained from the Bructeri, 16 a second one from the Marsii, and according to Cassius Dio the third one was (maybe from the Chauki) regained by Publius Gabinius in 41. Am I wrong?

Over the years, I have seen Eagles described as being of either gold or silver; and of varying size (the earlier ones being larger). Has anyone an authoritative list of ancient references? But can you imagine the weight of a solid gold Eagle with a 1 metre wingspan? Aquilifers were mighty men, it seems.

Of course Napoleon had the best idea of what an Eagle standard should look like!

Hilaritas!
jno

The weight of an eagle like that, mounted on the end of a seven foot pole would not be able to be handled by a single person, body builder or not. I'm of the camp that believes they were wood, covered with gold. Even then, they'd be hard to handle in strong winds or on uneven ground, steep inclines, or moving in a hurry.

Quote:Over the years, I have seen Eagles described as being of either gold or silver; and of varying size (the earlier ones being larger). Has anyone an authoritative list of ancient references? [...]

Yes. I've read too that they were silver, later silver with gilded parts, but I can't find any original references for this. I hope someone here can enlighten us.

Edit: I found some stuff, but I doubt it's exhaustive.

Cicero in In Catilinam I, 9, 24 mentions "aquilam...argenteam" (a silver eagle [standard]). This is around 60 BC.

Pliny in Naturalis Historia, XXXIII, XIX, 56 says silver is preferred for standards:

"Praecipuam gratiam huic materiae fuisse arbitror non colore qui clarior in argento est magisque diei similis, ideo militaribus signis familiarior, quoniam longius fulget" ("The highest rank has been accorded this substance [i.e. gold] not because of its colour, which in silver is clearer and more like daylight, for which reason silver is preferrred for military standards, as its brightness shines a greater distance.")

Also of interest, perhaps. The "Prima Porta" statue of Augustus has been restored by the Vatican Museum based on an analysis of remaining traces and old watercolours. The eagle on the front has been painted blue - presumably denoting silver.

I am opperating without source material on hand, but I could have sworn that I read that Marius was responsible for the introduction of a "gilded" eagle, suggesting of course that the gold was only a surface layer - but applied over what would be a good question...

"I thought the aquila of XVIIII was regained from the Bructeri, 16 a second one from the Marsii, and according to Cassius Dio the third one was (maybe from the Chauki) regained by Publius Gabinius in 41. Am I wrong?"

It took me awhile but I finally found all three of your references. I was thinking of Florus' claim that one the the Eagles had been saved by its bearer who ran into a bog and hid it within. It is possible that this was written before the recovery of the third eagle. I'm wondering though, wasn't there another Eagle lost somewhere along the Rhenus prior to the Varus disaster? If memory serves it was the Legio V Alaude. If that is so perhaps one of the three recovered post Varus was the Alaude's. I don't recall reading that Legio V's eagle was recovered.

As far as size of the Eagle goes, in Caesar's Gallic Wars he described an incident where an Eagle was saved by being hidden withing the girdle of a bearer's clothing. If so the Eagles of that period must have been very small. the depictions of Eagles on Trajan's column seem to be too large for that sort of thing though I realize the representations may not necessarily be to scale.

I'm also wondering how a craftsman would go about making an Eagle? Would it be gold over some other material like clay or another metal? I've no knowledge of gold craftsmanship.

A solid wooden one, finished and sealed in a good varnish could be gold leafed. Then you have the low-maintenance of gold, the lesser weight of wood, and probably as accurate of a model as any Legion in this century has. The trick is to get the model carved, sanded and finished. There are still people who can gild wood. They glue 24K gold leaf (incredibly thin!) onto the surface, and burnish it down. Probably the same general way that the ancients did it.

Quote:I am opperating without source material on hand, but I could have sworn that I read that Marius was responsible for the introduction of a "gilded" eagle, suggesting of course that the gold was only a surface layer - but applied over what would be a good question...

The source is Pliny's Naturalis Historia . He mentions nothing about the colour or material:

[Plin. Nat. 10.5] "Romanis eam legionibus gaius marius in secundo consulatu suo proprie dicavit. erat et antea prima cum quattuor aliis: lupi, minotauri, equi aprique singulos ordines anteibant. paucis ante
annis sola in aciem portari coepta erat, reliqua in castris relinquebantur; marius in totum ea abdicavit."

("Caius Marius, in his second consulship, assigned the eagle exclusively to the Roman legions. Before that period it had only held the first rank, there being four others as well, the wolf, the minotaur, the horse, and the wild boar, each of which preceded a single division. Some few years before his time it had begun to be the custom to carry the eagle only into battle, the other standards being left behind in camp; Marius, however, abolished the rest of them entirely.")

Could someone please post evidence for golden eagle standards? I haven't found any so far.

Quote:Could someone please post evidence for golden eagle standards? I haven't found any so far.

It is the well-known passage of Cassius Dio, Roman History 40.18. (See also Dio 43.35.4.)

Quote:It is the well-known passage of Cassius Dio, Roman History 40.18. (See also Dio 43.35.4.)

Thank you.

So, if I have this right, to summarise the literary evidence we have a source from the late republic mentioning a silver eagle, and a source from the late 2nd century (albeit writing about events during the late republic) mentioning a golden eagle and eagles carrying thunderbolts which were in some cases made of gold. There's also Pliny (writing in the late 1st century) who mentions silver as a preferred material for standards (although he doesn't actually specify eagles).

Looking over the coin images (Antonius and Septimus Severus mostly) here:

[url:bfug0pi4]http://www.romancoins.info/Legionary-Coins.html[/url]

we see a very consistent image of an eagle with body horizontal (unlike Napoleonic or typical "American" eagles), with wings raised and(?) extended. (i.e. an eagle in flight)

Hilaritas!

jno

Yes, and a very stylized eagle, at that. Not the "photo-representative" eagle seen on the tops of American flags, et al.
http://www.flagpolewarehouse.com/hardwa ... gles.shtml

Those flagpole-toppers just might be pointing in the right direction.

The "stylized" images on the coins, I think is more likely a result of the difficulty in ingraving a 0.5 cm. image on an iron die. Looking at Roman art generally, they weren't much for abstract reppresentation.

Hilaritas!

jno

Quote:The "stylized" images on the coins, I think is more likely a result of the difficulty in ingraving a 0.5 cm. image on an iron die. Looking at Roman art generally, they weren't much for abstract reppresentation.

What?! No abstract Roman art? I wholeheartedly disagree. If Roman art is anything, it is abstract. It has a naturalistic "feel" to it, but that´s it.

I'm sorry, but afaik, that's not abstract art. It's figurative. It might be not quite exactly representing the real things, but that doesn't make it abstract art.
If we look at the statues of the soldiers in the one of the pictures you showed, they are not represented equally to the reality, for example their spears. Neither is the eagle on the coin.