06-10-2004, 05:01 PM
With his "Roman Infantry Equipment" essay, young Ian Stephenson wrote a nice synopsis for a still to be written book. Some of the drawings (Johnny Shumata is much better..) are the result of putting every type of armour known on a single figure and it deals basically with heavy infantry, implying there weres no other types.<br>
Besides the absence of spangelhelms, there is only a single type inspired by an unfisnished example of a Niederbeber type and the bowman has a medieval looking head protection that is not archaeologically attested, I think.<br>
No square scutums either --still in use in the IIIrd CAD-- and no light troops.<br>
Besides, an author that spends several lines to explain to the reader the use of a shield, for instance, is using a very well known technique in journalism called "line stretching". You've got nothing to say, so say it at lenght..<br>
Quote: "The shield was a portable obstacle placed by the soldier between himself and danger...."<br>
Nooooooooo? Really?<br>
I thought they used it as an umbrella.<br>
If his cavalry piece is in the same vein I think I'll pass.. <p></p><i></i>
Besides the absence of spangelhelms, there is only a single type inspired by an unfisnished example of a Niederbeber type and the bowman has a medieval looking head protection that is not archaeologically attested, I think.<br>
No square scutums either --still in use in the IIIrd CAD-- and no light troops.<br>
Besides, an author that spends several lines to explain to the reader the use of a shield, for instance, is using a very well known technique in journalism called "line stretching". You've got nothing to say, so say it at lenght..<br>
Quote: "The shield was a portable obstacle placed by the soldier between himself and danger...."<br>
Nooooooooo? Really?<br>
I thought they used it as an umbrella.<br>
If his cavalry piece is in the same vein I think I'll pass.. <p></p><i></i>
