03-19-2014, 06:27 AM
Thank you Robert for showing an interest in my figures and for commenting on them.
Since you claim that our reconstruction of Tribune Bainobaudes is wrong I feel obliged to explain it a little more.
Let’s deal with the two figurines individually, starting with the first one.
As I mentioned this is based on a drawing Decebalus made for me for our latest book. Maybe he can share it with us in the “Show your Roman artwork” section. The reconstruction is supposed to portray Bainobaudes leading the charge of his men at the battle of Argentoratum. Bainobaudes was a Frankish mercenary (this is why he looks like one!) who had advanced in the Roman army and commanded an auxilium in the comitatenses. Before this he was the commander of one of the two scholae scutariorum (mounted guard units).
Since no description of Bainobaudes’ appearance at this fateful day in the summer of 357 has survived, his reconstruction has to remain speculative. It is based on contemporary Roman artwork and matching archaeological evidence mentioned in my previous post, though. Some background information provided by Ammianus was taken into consideration, too.
Because the only concrete point of criticism I could make out is the man’s lack of armour, I like to elaborate on the subject a little: I am convinced that all regular units of the late Roman field-army were equipped with a decent set of armour, including their senior officers of course. If armour was worn in battle or not was a tactical decision, though. As we know from pictorial evidence, it was not uncommon for Roman soldiers to fight without body armour in this period. Following SPEIDEL’s assertion that the horned men on the Arch of Constantine are indeed Cornuti, we might have even a depiction of the unit in question fighting without body armour. So if the Cornuti did without full armour at the siege of Verona, it is not beyond reason to assume that they might have done the same at Argentoratum. If they actually did, their CO would have been equally equipped in case he fought within their ranks. Why? Because no experienced infantry leader would allow himself to be slowed down by the weight of extra armour when his men discarded part of their protection for the sake of increased speed and maneuverability while facing an unarmoured opponent. The casualty figures provided by Ammianus (243 soldiers, 4 senior officers) can be taken as a clue that the unit commanders fought indeed alongside their men in this battle and did not lead from the save rear.
Taking all this into consideration we had the choice to portray Bainobaudes either with or without full armour. We simply opted for the version we deemed more attractive.
Now, let’s move to the second figure showing the tribune of the Cornuti raiding the islands in the Rhine. In this case it is pretty clear why he doesn’t wear any armour: According to Ammianus the “Romans” attacked the unsuspecting Alamanni on their islands were they sized boats from the enemy and proceeded to further islands, implying that they had no boats at their disposal in the initial phase of the raid. Amphibious assault without crafts means swimming – something preferably done without any armour!
Both figures are in my opinion legitimate reconstructions. But I remain open-minded: Everybody is welcome to prove me wrong, provided that some evidence is presented.
Since you claim that our reconstruction of Tribune Bainobaudes is wrong I feel obliged to explain it a little more.
Let’s deal with the two figurines individually, starting with the first one.
As I mentioned this is based on a drawing Decebalus made for me for our latest book. Maybe he can share it with us in the “Show your Roman artwork” section. The reconstruction is supposed to portray Bainobaudes leading the charge of his men at the battle of Argentoratum. Bainobaudes was a Frankish mercenary (this is why he looks like one!) who had advanced in the Roman army and commanded an auxilium in the comitatenses. Before this he was the commander of one of the two scholae scutariorum (mounted guard units).
Since no description of Bainobaudes’ appearance at this fateful day in the summer of 357 has survived, his reconstruction has to remain speculative. It is based on contemporary Roman artwork and matching archaeological evidence mentioned in my previous post, though. Some background information provided by Ammianus was taken into consideration, too.
Because the only concrete point of criticism I could make out is the man’s lack of armour, I like to elaborate on the subject a little: I am convinced that all regular units of the late Roman field-army were equipped with a decent set of armour, including their senior officers of course. If armour was worn in battle or not was a tactical decision, though. As we know from pictorial evidence, it was not uncommon for Roman soldiers to fight without body armour in this period. Following SPEIDEL’s assertion that the horned men on the Arch of Constantine are indeed Cornuti, we might have even a depiction of the unit in question fighting without body armour. So if the Cornuti did without full armour at the siege of Verona, it is not beyond reason to assume that they might have done the same at Argentoratum. If they actually did, their CO would have been equally equipped in case he fought within their ranks. Why? Because no experienced infantry leader would allow himself to be slowed down by the weight of extra armour when his men discarded part of their protection for the sake of increased speed and maneuverability while facing an unarmoured opponent. The casualty figures provided by Ammianus (243 soldiers, 4 senior officers) can be taken as a clue that the unit commanders fought indeed alongside their men in this battle and did not lead from the save rear.
Taking all this into consideration we had the choice to portray Bainobaudes either with or without full armour. We simply opted for the version we deemed more attractive.
Now, let’s move to the second figure showing the tribune of the Cornuti raiding the islands in the Rhine. In this case it is pretty clear why he doesn’t wear any armour: According to Ammianus the “Romans” attacked the unsuspecting Alamanni on their islands were they sized boats from the enemy and proceeded to further islands, implying that they had no boats at their disposal in the initial phase of the raid. Amphibious assault without crafts means swimming – something preferably done without any armour!
Both figures are in my opinion legitimate reconstructions. But I remain open-minded: Everybody is welcome to prove me wrong, provided that some evidence is presented.
Andreas Strassmeir
