08-04-2007, 11:28 AM
There are perpetual problems with using sculpture as a reliable source for military hardware. It's a question of interpretation. The sculptor may never have seen one of these things, for one thing. For another, he may have a different 'agenda'. It's not a problem confined to the ancient world either; there is a statue of one of the Stuart kings (Charles or James 1st, can't remember which) outside the National Gallery in London wearing a muscle cuirass. It's so small that if it were possible to get the man inside it, he would never be able to breathe!
If you look at Trajan's column, the first thing that strikes you is that the Roman helmets are (a) way too small and (b) many of them have a ring on top! The second thing is that the shields are far too small (they barely reach the knees, let alone the mid-calf). The sculptor is trying to show the man behind the equipment - and it's a popular idea that the actual equipment is being used as a shorthand way of identifying particular groups of people or individuals - so lorica segmentata tells us (and the Romans it was made for) that "these are the citizen soldiers". To my knowledge, no example of a Roman helmet has been recovered where there is a ring on top! So, where did that one come from?
In many cases, sculptural representations of helmets, even Corinthian ones, are too small. If the helmet was meant to be pulled down over the face (as Greek red/black vase art certainly suggests), then the example shown above (Athena) is far too small for the purpose. I printed it out and used a ruler to measure it - the poor woman would have had her nose squashed all over her face!! The shape of the Apulo-Corinthian type, however, suggests that it was not meant to be worn in this way, but rather as a cap on top of the head.
I have information on dozens of Apulo-Corinthian helmets, as well as the Corinthian type and the former have a distinctly different profile, being much wider in relation to their height, clearly pointing to a different mode of wear.
Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)
If you look at Trajan's column, the first thing that strikes you is that the Roman helmets are (a) way too small and (b) many of them have a ring on top! The second thing is that the shields are far too small (they barely reach the knees, let alone the mid-calf). The sculptor is trying to show the man behind the equipment - and it's a popular idea that the actual equipment is being used as a shorthand way of identifying particular groups of people or individuals - so lorica segmentata tells us (and the Romans it was made for) that "these are the citizen soldiers". To my knowledge, no example of a Roman helmet has been recovered where there is a ring on top! So, where did that one come from?
In many cases, sculptural representations of helmets, even Corinthian ones, are too small. If the helmet was meant to be pulled down over the face (as Greek red/black vase art certainly suggests), then the example shown above (Athena) is far too small for the purpose. I printed it out and used a ruler to measure it - the poor woman would have had her nose squashed all over her face!! The shape of the Apulo-Corinthian type, however, suggests that it was not meant to be worn in this way, but rather as a cap on top of the head.
I have information on dozens of Apulo-Corinthian helmets, as well as the Corinthian type and the former have a distinctly different profile, being much wider in relation to their height, clearly pointing to a different mode of wear.
Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
