06-28-2001, 05:55 AM
Salve,<br>
<br>
The sculptors used several standard models to portray certain types of soldiers. Thus the legionary and praetorian rank and file all appear in tunic and segmentata generally carrying rectangular shields and cavalry of all sorts, standardbearers and most auxiliary infantry are shown wearing breeches, short tunics and mail shirts. Officers appear in muscle cuirasses worn with pteryges, breeches and cloaks. There are a number of anomalous figures that present a mix of these stereotypes and in recent interpretations these are considered to be mistakes of the artists. These include the auxiliary with the rectangular shield, formerly thought to have represented an auxilairy from a <i> cohors scutata</i>, the auxiliary with the animal pelt on his helmet, which used to be regarded as either a legionary light infantryman due to the similarity to the republican <i> veles</i> or the true appearance of the already highly Germanised Roman army (in E. Sander's extraordinarily wacky 'Die Germanisierung des roemischen Heeres' from 1938(!)) and the legionary with zigzagged edging under his segmented armour, thought to have been a representation of n arming doublet.<br>
<br>
For a recent interpretation of this monument read:<br>
<br>
Coulston, J., 'The value of Trajan's Column as a source for military equipment', in: C. van Driel-Murray <i> Roman Military Equipment: the Sources of Evidence</i> (Oxford 1989), 31-44.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
The sculptors used several standard models to portray certain types of soldiers. Thus the legionary and praetorian rank and file all appear in tunic and segmentata generally carrying rectangular shields and cavalry of all sorts, standardbearers and most auxiliary infantry are shown wearing breeches, short tunics and mail shirts. Officers appear in muscle cuirasses worn with pteryges, breeches and cloaks. There are a number of anomalous figures that present a mix of these stereotypes and in recent interpretations these are considered to be mistakes of the artists. These include the auxiliary with the rectangular shield, formerly thought to have represented an auxilairy from a <i> cohors scutata</i>, the auxiliary with the animal pelt on his helmet, which used to be regarded as either a legionary light infantryman due to the similarity to the republican <i> veles</i> or the true appearance of the already highly Germanised Roman army (in E. Sander's extraordinarily wacky 'Die Germanisierung des roemischen Heeres' from 1938(!)) and the legionary with zigzagged edging under his segmented armour, thought to have been a representation of n arming doublet.<br>
<br>
For a recent interpretation of this monument read:<br>
<br>
Coulston, J., 'The value of Trajan's Column as a source for military equipment', in: C. van Driel-Murray <i> Roman Military Equipment: the Sources of Evidence</i> (Oxford 1989), 31-44.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
