Roman Military Clothing (3)

[Robert Vermaat]

I bet Marcentius is in reality Raffaele d'Amato...

Raffaele, could you please add your name to your signature? It's a forum rule, you know?

I am going out from the hidden corner where I am integrating the Greenhill book with the new spectacular finds from Romania just to answer to the questions.

Are you? That's great!! We really want to read that book! Any idea when it's up for publishing? hock:

The problem of the interpretation of the Dyptich as Stilicho or Aetius is a old topic, already dealt from Delbrueck in his work upon the Late-Roman ivory Dyptich. We have to consider that both Aetius and Stilicho were Magistri Utriusque Militiae and that both of them had son and wife.

Is there information available when, for the first time, this dyptich was ascribed to Stilicho? For Graham is right, in (almost) every book that I come across this dyptich is describes as depicting Stilicho & family.

Hottenroth mentioned two dyptich.

In your opinion, were there really two of them, or did Hottenroth use a source that had duplicated this one, and created a non-existing double?

But especially an other circumstance was attractive. The so called sarcophagus of Stilicho, in the Basilica of Saint Ambrogio in Milano, was in reality the sarcophagus of a later Magister Militum, that some scholars interpreted like Aetius. He is represented more times on the sarcophagus: in scale armour with his wife (the hairstyle is sligtly later than "Serena" on the Monza Dyptich) and hairs cut in military style, and then as triumphant Cristus on the sides.
So, if this General was Aetius, Aetius was unbearded.

OK, so we have another monument that's ascribed to Stilicho, but without proof too. So, why is there doubt about this one being Aetius? can't they both belong to Stilicho? Or can both be Aetius? I mean, the dyptich is likely to celebrate probably a consulate (of which Aetius had no less than four!), and the sarcophagus is of course later than the dyptich, in both cases (except when it's Aetius' dyptich and Stilicho's sarcophagus after all!). But if the hairstyle of the woman (calling her 'Serena' would be rather presumptious?) is only 'slightly' later, cannot she be the same woman as on ther dyptich? I mean, Aetius died two generations after Stilicho, so his wife's hairstyle might be more different than 'slightly' later?

So, both the dyptich and the sarcophagus could have belonged to the same man, either Stilicho or Aetius. So why the choices that are made? Are we not falling for the image? Stilicho, as a 'Vandal', we assume to be bearded, while Aetius, as a 'Roman', should be neatly clean-shaven? :wink:

But if that's how the minds of the commentators worked in the past, truth be told that's all nonsense. Stilicho was as Roman as every man at court, whilst Aetius lived for a considerable time amongst the Huns!

Hottenroth reconstructions had a very important element: he based it upon the traces of colours still present on the monument. And infact what we have? Gold and purple, exactly waht we could espect from a Magister Militum.

Which does not help us one bit, because both men held that rank.

Please, can you mail me any pictures/drawings of that sarcophagus? I've heard of it before, but never have any pictures been published! (fectio AT hotmail DOT com). Thanks!