03-19-2014, 11:11 AM
Hello Andreas
Without any adverse reflection on the quality of your figure (or Andreas Gagelmann's excellent illustration), I'd like to pick up on Robert's comments about a couple of your points.
The idea that the men on the arch are Cornuti was originally suggested by Andrew Alföldi in 1935. In my view the suggestion doesn't really hold up though. I went into detail about it in the thread Cornuti - or not?, but I'll precis my argument here:
1. The soldiers are not clearly wearing horns on their helmets. I've suggested feathers, perhaps as an identifying sign for the Gallic army (?). Feathers are attested as Roman helmet crests, horns are not. No source describes the Cornuti, or anybody else, wearing horned helmets!
2. The shield design with the 'horned creature' and the figure of Victory is not part of the Constantinian frieze, but one of the column bases. The bases are in a different style to the frieze, and like much else on the Arch were most probably taken from an earlier monument. I've suggested a tetrarchic monument, portraying the four victories of the four emperors. So the shield design may be genuine, but has no connection with Constantine or his troops.
3. The twin animal head design occurs on Roman military buckles from the 3rd century, helmets, and several other shields in the ND besides the cornuti. It is possibly a Roman design rather than a 'Germanic' one. (Plus the only Cornutus with a known origin came from Dacia!)
4. There's no mention of the Cornuti, or any other of the later auxilia formations, prior to the mid 4th century. They would seem more likey to be an innovation of the later Constantinian reforms.
But the 'Verona' frieze actually shows the officer - or perhaps centurion - and a senior commander to the left of the troops. Both of them are wearing the muscle cuirass.
[attachment=9307]Arch.Const.jpg[/attachment]
However, I don't doubt that on occasion some Roman troops of any era fought without armour, and the river battle you mentioned would seem a good anough excuse.
Without any adverse reflection on the quality of your figure (or Andreas Gagelmann's excellent illustration), I'd like to pick up on Robert's comments about a couple of your points.
Quote:Following SPEIDEL’s assertion that the horned men on the Arch of Constantine are indeed Cornuti
The idea that the men on the arch are Cornuti was originally suggested by Andrew Alföldi in 1935. In my view the suggestion doesn't really hold up though. I went into detail about it in the thread Cornuti - or not?, but I'll precis my argument here:
1. The soldiers are not clearly wearing horns on their helmets. I've suggested feathers, perhaps as an identifying sign for the Gallic army (?). Feathers are attested as Roman helmet crests, horns are not. No source describes the Cornuti, or anybody else, wearing horned helmets!
2. The shield design with the 'horned creature' and the figure of Victory is not part of the Constantinian frieze, but one of the column bases. The bases are in a different style to the frieze, and like much else on the Arch were most probably taken from an earlier monument. I've suggested a tetrarchic monument, portraying the four victories of the four emperors. So the shield design may be genuine, but has no connection with Constantine or his troops.
3. The twin animal head design occurs on Roman military buckles from the 3rd century, helmets, and several other shields in the ND besides the cornuti. It is possibly a Roman design rather than a 'Germanic' one. (Plus the only Cornutus with a known origin came from Dacia!)
4. There's no mention of the Cornuti, or any other of the later auxilia formations, prior to the mid 4th century. They would seem more likey to be an innovation of the later Constantinian reforms.
Quote:So if the Cornuti did without full armour at the siege of Verona... their CO would have been equally equipped in case he fought within their ranks.
But the 'Verona' frieze actually shows the officer - or perhaps centurion - and a senior commander to the left of the troops. Both of them are wearing the muscle cuirass.
[attachment=9307]Arch.Const.jpg[/attachment]
However, I don't doubt that on occasion some Roman troops of any era fought without armour, and the river battle you mentioned would seem a good anough excuse.
Nathan Ross
