09-04-2004, 04:14 AM
Avete omnes,<br>
<br>
Antoninus, Your idea about the living eagle on the so called "Praetorian" relief from the Louvre is a really fascinating theory! Perhaps You remember that older thread about Praetorian cavalry where I placed some photos of a diorama I made with the central soldiers from the relief in the foreground.<br>
<br>
When I made it I wondered already about the eagle standard but as I had no other idea I tried to reconstruct it as an - although unusual - standard:<br>
<br>
<img src="http://people.freenet.de/u-bahr/Praet3.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
But I think Your theory has some pro's and contra's:<br>
<br>
pro: 1. the absolutely unique form of the eagle on the standard; normally they are shown with their wings hold upright and occasionally with a laurel wreath around the wings or they are shown with spread out wings, e.g. the one given back by a Parthian to a Roman officer on the Augustus statue from Prima Porta. It looks as if the artist wanted to show something different from the other known eagle standard depictions - just a real living animal.<br>
2. the off-central position of the eagle. Also unique, but typical for a living bird that would not sit quiet on the podest.<br>
3. the size - this eagle seems to be bigger than every other one of the known eagle standards. Indeed all reconstructions of re-enactment groups show eagle standards that are much smaller than a real eagle. And I think there is no need to ask ornithologists for the existence of smaller eagles - Roman artists usually tended to scale down the size of things (e.g. the scuta on Traian's column or generally all cheek guards in order to show more of the faces).<br>
<br>
contra: 1. the man carrying the standard is dressed like a normal aquilifer with a animal skin (bear, wulf or lion).<br>
2. the absence of references in the ancient texts about living eagles as mascots; this is only a negative proof and does not exclude that they existed nevertheless.<br>
<br>
The problem is that we cannot proove the existence of living eagles as standards or mascots, but also we cannot exclude it. But IMHO there are some indications more for it; today I would probably tend to reconstruct the eagle as a living animal.<br>
<br>
Uwe <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=uwebahr>Uwe Bahr</A> at: 9/4/04 12:47 pm<br></i>
<br>
Antoninus, Your idea about the living eagle on the so called "Praetorian" relief from the Louvre is a really fascinating theory! Perhaps You remember that older thread about Praetorian cavalry where I placed some photos of a diorama I made with the central soldiers from the relief in the foreground.<br>
<br>
When I made it I wondered already about the eagle standard but as I had no other idea I tried to reconstruct it as an - although unusual - standard:<br>
<br>
<img src="http://people.freenet.de/u-bahr/Praet3.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
But I think Your theory has some pro's and contra's:<br>
<br>
pro: 1. the absolutely unique form of the eagle on the standard; normally they are shown with their wings hold upright and occasionally with a laurel wreath around the wings or they are shown with spread out wings, e.g. the one given back by a Parthian to a Roman officer on the Augustus statue from Prima Porta. It looks as if the artist wanted to show something different from the other known eagle standard depictions - just a real living animal.<br>
2. the off-central position of the eagle. Also unique, but typical for a living bird that would not sit quiet on the podest.<br>
3. the size - this eagle seems to be bigger than every other one of the known eagle standards. Indeed all reconstructions of re-enactment groups show eagle standards that are much smaller than a real eagle. And I think there is no need to ask ornithologists for the existence of smaller eagles - Roman artists usually tended to scale down the size of things (e.g. the scuta on Traian's column or generally all cheek guards in order to show more of the faces).<br>
<br>
contra: 1. the man carrying the standard is dressed like a normal aquilifer with a animal skin (bear, wulf or lion).<br>
2. the absence of references in the ancient texts about living eagles as mascots; this is only a negative proof and does not exclude that they existed nevertheless.<br>
<br>
The problem is that we cannot proove the existence of living eagles as standards or mascots, but also we cannot exclude it. But IMHO there are some indications more for it; today I would probably tend to reconstruct the eagle as a living animal.<br>
<br>
Uwe <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=uwebahr>Uwe Bahr</A> at: 9/4/04 12:47 pm<br></i>
Greets - Uwe
