08-12-2016, 10:40 PM
I would agree with Mike that the inclusion of several pages of army lists is probably not what the average Osprey reader would be interested in. However I myself was impressed with the artwork which was very detailed but as Mike also points out both here and in his Amazon review, that means it highlights several errors or issues of contention.
For example the author urges us to treat Roman sculpture as an accurate record. The artwork nevertheless shows methods of sword and dagger suspension which seems to owe more to re-enactment than Roman sculpture. Also the scale of several swords, daggers and shields appear the wrong scale.
There are also a number of contradictions. One of the author's arguments is for distinctive provincial dress and unit equipment. However the legionary from Caerleon in Wales has a helmet from Eastern Europe when there is evidence for a helmet from Caerleon itself. Equally the Caerleon shield with its unique shape would have been an ideal choice to support the author's argument but is ignored in favor of the standard rectangular type but with a familiar boss from another legion. (A few years ago I produced a reconstruction of a Caerleon legionary and included most of the equipment from Caerleon)
There is also a sly dig perhaps at Bishop and Coulston's comments on the difference between legionary and auxiliary equipment. However their conclusions are in part largely based on the same Roman sculptural sources which the author urges us to look at.
I would have liked to have seen more evidence for some of the other points the author raises. For instance the evidence for legionaries on Trajan's column wearing long sleeved leather coats under their lorica. I am also baffled by the inclusion of a Spanish auxiliary standard bearer based on a tombstone from Germany as evidence for uniforms in Africa?
Furthermore I would have liked some examples of evidence for ordinary soldiers in Britain wearing native clothing as the artwork suggests. To me evidence from Roman sources suggests otherwise. For example soldiers from Vindolanda were being sent to Gaul to collect clothing and Roman sculptures (which we are urged to look at) depict the Native Briton warriors naked. Andrew Birley from Vindolanda recently mentioned that the surrounding native settlements showed almost no evidence of contact with the Romans at all, it is as if Vindolanda did not exist. The traders in the vicus were probably not locals either but from across the empire who followed the army and presumably supplied the soldiers with better quality goods than what the army issued.
Equally weavers in Egypt at the same time were supplying clothing for units as far away as modern day Israel and Turkey. So again I am not sure how that fits into the argument for distinct provincial army dress. The mentions of some officers wearing 'native' clothing at times seem to me to be negative propaganda. i.e not only was this general a rebel but he wore Gallic trousers too!
There is also no discussion on the items of clothing sent to soldiers from home. Presumably the author will argue that there was a lack of space but as others have mentioned the army list could have been dispensed with.
My own impression is that soldiers followed, or on occasion influenced, the prevailing Roman male fashion while retaining a distinct military identity.
As usual with any D'Amato book there is material that most readers will have never seen before, which is to be commended. It was nice to find references to the textile finds from Dydimoi in Egypt which I was quite pleased to see could be seen as support for my suggestions in 'Roman military Dress' for the off white and red tunics, which all had clavi of various colours including purple. Even more surprising was that the garrison here was an auxiliary one. So once again they were wearing standard 'Roman' rather than 'ethnic' dress.
I am looking forward to the next volume in the series which will explore a region less well studied and hopefully will be full of supporting evidence
Graham.
For example the author urges us to treat Roman sculpture as an accurate record. The artwork nevertheless shows methods of sword and dagger suspension which seems to owe more to re-enactment than Roman sculpture. Also the scale of several swords, daggers and shields appear the wrong scale.
There are also a number of contradictions. One of the author's arguments is for distinctive provincial dress and unit equipment. However the legionary from Caerleon in Wales has a helmet from Eastern Europe when there is evidence for a helmet from Caerleon itself. Equally the Caerleon shield with its unique shape would have been an ideal choice to support the author's argument but is ignored in favor of the standard rectangular type but with a familiar boss from another legion. (A few years ago I produced a reconstruction of a Caerleon legionary and included most of the equipment from Caerleon)
There is also a sly dig perhaps at Bishop and Coulston's comments on the difference between legionary and auxiliary equipment. However their conclusions are in part largely based on the same Roman sculptural sources which the author urges us to look at.
I would have liked to have seen more evidence for some of the other points the author raises. For instance the evidence for legionaries on Trajan's column wearing long sleeved leather coats under their lorica. I am also baffled by the inclusion of a Spanish auxiliary standard bearer based on a tombstone from Germany as evidence for uniforms in Africa?
Furthermore I would have liked some examples of evidence for ordinary soldiers in Britain wearing native clothing as the artwork suggests. To me evidence from Roman sources suggests otherwise. For example soldiers from Vindolanda were being sent to Gaul to collect clothing and Roman sculptures (which we are urged to look at) depict the Native Briton warriors naked. Andrew Birley from Vindolanda recently mentioned that the surrounding native settlements showed almost no evidence of contact with the Romans at all, it is as if Vindolanda did not exist. The traders in the vicus were probably not locals either but from across the empire who followed the army and presumably supplied the soldiers with better quality goods than what the army issued.
Equally weavers in Egypt at the same time were supplying clothing for units as far away as modern day Israel and Turkey. So again I am not sure how that fits into the argument for distinct provincial army dress. The mentions of some officers wearing 'native' clothing at times seem to me to be negative propaganda. i.e not only was this general a rebel but he wore Gallic trousers too!
There is also no discussion on the items of clothing sent to soldiers from home. Presumably the author will argue that there was a lack of space but as others have mentioned the army list could have been dispensed with.
My own impression is that soldiers followed, or on occasion influenced, the prevailing Roman male fashion while retaining a distinct military identity.
As usual with any D'Amato book there is material that most readers will have never seen before, which is to be commended. It was nice to find references to the textile finds from Dydimoi in Egypt which I was quite pleased to see could be seen as support for my suggestions in 'Roman military Dress' for the off white and red tunics, which all had clavi of various colours including purple. Even more surprising was that the garrison here was an auxiliary one. So once again they were wearing standard 'Roman' rather than 'ethnic' dress.
I am looking forward to the next volume in the series which will explore a region less well studied and hopefully will be full of supporting evidence
Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.
"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
