08-17-2009, 12:04 AM
Intersting sculpture. I've seen drawings but never a photo before. A few quick observations and questions:
Any chance these might be a couple of gladiators? I don't know much about Roman gladiators at all, I'm afraid, but isn't two greaves a bit unusual? Supposedly, legionaries wore a single greave around the time of Polybius, but abandoned greaves all together by the early 2nd century, and didn't adopt them again until, what, the Dacian wars?
On the other hand, I believe there's a sculpture of a cornicen from Osuna that is clearly wearing two greaves (and no other armor at all). The Telamon figurine (which is probably a Roman soldier), dated cir. 250 -150 BC, also has two greaves, as well as a helmet, but no other body armor.
Also, though you can't tell on the left hand figure, the right hand figure obviously doesn't have a sword scabbard visible. I don't believe gladiators carried sword scabbards, but if it is a soldier, wouldn't that mean his scabbard is on the left hand side, hidden by his shield? And wouldn't that possibly indicate that he's a centurion?
There are quite a number of dipictions of Roman soldiers without armor, often engaged in combat, dating from the 3rd c. BC to 1st c. AD. I'd hesitate to say the figure on the right was wearing some kind of padding, if only because the Romans had some strange and stylized ways of showing the natural folds in tunics.
Gregg
Any chance these might be a couple of gladiators? I don't know much about Roman gladiators at all, I'm afraid, but isn't two greaves a bit unusual? Supposedly, legionaries wore a single greave around the time of Polybius, but abandoned greaves all together by the early 2nd century, and didn't adopt them again until, what, the Dacian wars?
On the other hand, I believe there's a sculpture of a cornicen from Osuna that is clearly wearing two greaves (and no other armor at all). The Telamon figurine (which is probably a Roman soldier), dated cir. 250 -150 BC, also has two greaves, as well as a helmet, but no other body armor.
Also, though you can't tell on the left hand figure, the right hand figure obviously doesn't have a sword scabbard visible. I don't believe gladiators carried sword scabbards, but if it is a soldier, wouldn't that mean his scabbard is on the left hand side, hidden by his shield? And wouldn't that possibly indicate that he's a centurion?
There are quite a number of dipictions of Roman soldiers without armor, often engaged in combat, dating from the 3rd c. BC to 1st c. AD. I'd hesitate to say the figure on the right was wearing some kind of padding, if only because the Romans had some strange and stylized ways of showing the natural folds in tunics.
Gregg
