LORICA SQUAMATA‏

[Matt Lukes]

Your quote seems to conflict with the point I think you are trying to make.

First off; I don't doubt that a large percentage of horse armor was made from large scales. It is quite concievable that some percentage of horse armor was made from small scales when you add personal vanity and a large purse to the equation. I would consider both positions reasonable.

Your quote allows for the possibility that large scales were incorporated into soldier's body armor.

Now about depictions: I think you are over generalizing. All depictions and renderings are not equal because all artists and artisans are not equal.

Well I wasn't trying to make a point so much as supply some relevant information. I wouldn't pick and choose what I present if I know something that supports either position.

Certainly it's conceivable that horse armor could have been made with smaller scales if one had the money, but that's not exactly good reason to believe the opposite would be true. James' statement is clearly not a serious theory, but rather the appropriate concession to reasonability since there's no definite reason large scales couldn't be used on soldiers' armor. Notice however that he does point out reasons it wasn't necessarily very likely. And of course just because something is possible certianly doesn't make it probable.

Just like so many other things within the subject of ancient studies, in the absence of enough definitive evidence, we have to work on liklihoods.

As for what I wrote about depictions, can you actually counter with an example where scales are shown to be very small? Or even significantly different than the majority? All the ones I'm aware of are quite large- relative to the vast majority of artifacts we have- and that's the significant point. The rational does follow quite well that since we know mail is almost never carved realistically, scale, which is also made large numbers of small elements, likely wasn't either. That's not to say it never was, however the doubt makes taking sculptural depictions very dodgy. And with specific respect to scale depictions, there's a further issue- many show scales with central ribs and yet virtually no artifacts of this type are known- I've only heard there are one or more from a single site. That itself suggests the depictions aren't exactly true-to-life.

[Tarbicus]

The relief is an artistic expression. There is more going on than just rendering a portrayal of an event.

So maybe you shouldn't use such works as examples of large scales on squamata? No sword scabbards = inaccurate representation IMHO. :wink:

[Cassius Tullius]

The relief is an artistic expression. There is more going on than just rendering a portrayal of an event.

So maybe you shouldn't use such works as examples of large scales on squamata? No sword scabbards = inaccurate representation IMHO. :wink:

According to your line of thinking, we would then have to disallow all artistic and representational sources. The written word is good when you can find it. Archeological finds are really good. Finds are themselves the subject of interpretation and misinterpretation. Without the artistic sources there would certainly be a lot more misinterpreting going on.

I was referring to the kinds of artistic cues that a Roman would recognize. It is a kind of wisdom. If you have it you can read into it more than just pictures. Understand? :wink:

No scabbards or swords but a pole-arm may = rank & file cavalry. Bearing swords in a relaxed but dignified posture next to a prominant figure may = an indication of the dignity of the person they stand beside. The inclusion of scabbards for everyone, in the context of the presence of the swordbearers, might confuse or mistate the message. To the Roman this composition wasn't just some well executed pictures. He would have interpreted what he saw. He would have read it.

[Tarbicus]

According to your line of thinking, we would then have to disallow all artistic and representational sources.

No we wouldn't. But, we should be careful of how we interpret such imagery, especially large scale propaganda pieces as opposed to small scale individual portraits, where the subject is a focused representation of a single man, and in itself intended as an actual document of him in visual form, and not of large scale events where. A grave stele's portrait is literally an image of a man intended to show how he looked, but a large scale monument is intended to describe what happened. They have very different purposes, the former to be viewed also by people who actually knew the soldier and must therefore be able to recognise him. An emperor or main character of a large monument is the only one needed to be recognised, where the rest of the incidental characters need to fulfill the visual expectations of an audience which, as we see even today, often means accuracy is expendable in favour of how people expect to see them so that the story and message can be told. But even a grave stele will be full of technical inaccuracies.

The written word is good when you can find it. Archeological finds are really good. Finds are themselves the subject of interpretation and misinterpretation. Without the artistic sources there would certainly be a lot more misinterpreting going on.

Agreed, you have to be careful about interpretation across the board.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

To the Roman this composition wasn't just some well executed pictures. He would have interpreted what he saw. He would have read it.

Absolutely true, even if, according to Hans Peter L'Orange, there were substantial differences of representation between the traditional roman society (Monarchy, Republic, Principate) and the roman society of the, after 300 AD, Dominate. The increased rigidness of the roman State, started since Traianic period, almost suddenly becomes evident in the visual propaganda: the ancient symbolism rich of meanings that before everybody could understand is now replaced by a size matter and a rigid aesthetics.

Quality vs Size (quantity), Virtus example vs. brute force, Auctoritas vs. bullying, Ara Pacis vs. Costantinus giant statue.
And this is so evident in the Dominate representations of the power and hierarchy: giant (the Dominus) vs. small figures all the others (just numbers).

That levelling towards the bottom was one of the reasons of the increasing roman common people's ignorance and of the big deserting the ancient knowledge and Gods. (IMHO)

About accuracy, we have just to decide if Augustus of Prima Porta armour is more keeping with the real than the Tetrarchs in Venice kits.

Valete,