Making Pteruges (or at least trying to make Pteruges!)

[Marcus Mummius]

That logic is at least consistent with the sculptural evidence… we always see layers upon layers of Pteruges on a statue of an Emperor or General, we sometimes see them on the grave stones of veterans (whose families had to have been wealthy to have purchased the grave stone reliefs with full body portraits) but, we don’t see them on nearly any of the soldiers on Trajan’s column.

And once again (how many times has this same argument come up :roll: ) the Adamklissi metopes have to be mentioned. This is very reliable sculptural evidence for regular rank and file soldiers on campaign wearing several layers of pteryges...

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Ave Marcus,

I understand your point about the Adamclisi metopes however, this seems to be the exception not the rule. Most scenes lack detail and where I do see Pteruges, they appear to be one layer... although most could be hidden by armor.

Other famous sculptures from antiquity, such as Trajan’s column and the base of Antonius Pius do not show most soldiers with Pteruges.

Of the 54 panels at the Adamclisi metopes, many panels do not show soldiers with layers of Pteruges... many of the panels show the soldiers with tunics only, many of the panels show Roman soldiers without armor, even when marching with shields. The link to some of the panels is below.

I am not saying that soldiers cannot or did not wear Pteruges, unequivocally not… what I am saying is that most did not, mostly due to the cost and time consuming method of making them. Armor being the more important purchase.

Link:
[url:5obqdqja]http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/contents/iconog/provinci/adamklis/metope.htm[/url]

Images:

Looks like one layer on the arm and two layers of Tongue Pteruges around the waist


With chainmaile... could be Pteruges, maybe


These soldiers are not wearing helmets or armor or Pteruges...

[Marcus Mummius]

Hi Anthony,

There are some more on the metopes.

You should read a few of the threads on this board that discuss the accuracy of the depictions on the Adamklissi metopes, compared to other monuments like TC. Then you will better understand the differerence in the depiction of military equipment, and why the Adamklissi metopes most likely give a much more accurate image of Roman military equipment than the other monuments you mention.

Vale,

[Tarbicus]

what I am saying is that most did not, mostly due to the cost and time consuming method of making them. Armor being the more important purchase.

This has cropped up before as well, and assumes there was a rationing of resources, and that after equipping a legionary with expensive helmet, armour, greaves, manica (note none of the TC soldiers have those last two, yet are found in the archaeological record), scutum, gladius, pugio, belt, sending them hundreds of miles and maintaining them there for a campaign, suddenly it's "Whooaaaaa! we can't possibly add pteryges, it'll break the bank! The Empire will be ruined!".

Adamklissi is in Dacia, Trajan's Column is in Italy. Adamklissi shows an abundant variety of equipment worn, whereas TC shows complete and utter uniformity amongst the legionaries. I'm sure I can even see the same heads repeated :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

I'm sure I can even see the same heads repeated

Well, yeah, Jim, because the really vain soldiers ran forward up the spiral to model for the next chiselling. :lol:

Or maybe they were paying a couple of denarii a head, and some of the soldiers wanted to get ahead, so they posed multiple times, and the sculptors -- never mind.

[M. Demetrius]

Also, in that one metope...can you imagine the fellow on the ground getting a pilum jammed up to its wood hilt?? Stuck from the shoulder down to the thigh! Ow!

[Magnus]

Maybe he's just scratching the guy's back with it?

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Ave,

Maybe he's just scratching the guy's back with it?

Scratching your head that way could leave you without a head! :lol:

Anyways… and absolutely no disrespect to anyone on this forum but… honestly, if you look at the craftsmanship on the Adamklissi metopes and compare it to sculptures such as, oh… basically every other sculpture from antiquity… I see a real lack of talent there.

The sculptor who chiseled out the Adamklissi metopes was either drunk or suffering from a traumatic brain injury… perhaps he was scratching his head with a gladius and cut a little too deep!?!?! :wink:

Seriously… just compare the artistry of this sculpture to any of the Adamklissi metopes panels…

[Marcus Mummius]

Anyways… and absolutely no disrespect to anyone on this forum but… honestly, if you look at the craftsmanship on the Adamklissi metopes and compare it to sculptures such as, oh… basically every other sculpture from antiquity… I see a real lack of talent there.

The sculptor who chiseled out the Adamklissi metopes was either drunk or suffering from a traumatic brain injury… perhaps he was scratching his head with a gladius and cut a little too deep!?!?! Wink

Seriously… just compare the artistry of this sculpture to any of the Adamklissi metopes panels…

Anthony, I think you don't understand... The Adamklissi metopes were made by local sculptures or the soldiers themselves. This means they were very familiar with the equipment they had to depict. They had seen real roman soldiers with their own eyes. This resulted in an accurate depiction.

The large monuments in Rome were made in workshops by very talented sculptures, but sculptures working in a city were legionaries were not present. They had probably never seen soldiers on campaign. They based their depictions on what they saw in other pieces of art and perhaps a few props lying around in the workshop.

We are not discussing the skill of the sculptors here, but the accuracy of the stuff they depict.

Vale,
Jef

[Robert]

Excuse me, but the image posted by Anthony clearly shows the soldiers wearing the segs also wearing short pteruges similar to the one worn by the guy to the left in the curass, pointing to a similar subarmalis worn by both types. When reviewing the subarmalis of those wearing mail, it would seem these had the longer, single row of pteruges on the subarmalis, possibly on the leather overcoat worn over the linnen/felt padding, the hamata being more open to rain and damp.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Also, in that one metope...can you imagine the fellow on the ground getting a pilum jammed up to its wood hilt?? Stuck from the shoulder down to the thigh! Ow!

A good example of a heroic moment, as Romes finest saves a young child from being hacked in 2 by the Dacian barbarian.......

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

We are not discussing the skill of the sculptors here, but the accuracy of the stuff they depict.

True, but I never argued the panels were inaccurate. I posted images both with and without Pteruges as well from the panels.

My statement was the number of Pteruges, the layers, and provided a reason why we rarely (not never, but rarely) see multiple layers of Pteruges on most legionary… the cost of all that extra embellishment on the subarmails. I actually argued that some legionary did have Pteruges.

(but yes, I did digress into picking on the sculptor! and I followed Matt's joke with one of my own )

Matt said: Maybe he's just scratching the guy's back with it?

Anthony replied: Scratching your head that way could leave you without a head!

But back to the number and layers of Pteruges... the basis was the same for why we see many ornate pugio scabbards but, there are many more plain ones… the cost.

Why we see eagle handled swords made of ivory but, more often they are all very similar and made from bone… the cost of making a carved eagle handle, the craftsmanship it takes to make one and the cost of the ivory.

Not that it will "it'll break the bank! The Empire will be ruined!" but extra emblishment would add a great deal of extra expense... and it would have taken more time to make each piece, which means less could be made in short time.

If extra expense was not an issue, then every Roman would have had ornate Muscle armor, layers and layers of multi color Pteruges, ivory handled swords, custom ornate helmets, etc.

I’ve read that the Base of Antoninus Pius, above, is a scene of a Triumph (a parade celebrating a victory) so, I would venture to guess that the sculpture was looking at soldiers or had observed the Triumph.... or possible not.

[Crispvs]

"But back to the number and layers of Pteruges... the basis was the same for why we see many ornate pugio scabbards but, there are many more plain ones… the cost."

Do you have evidence to back this amazing statement up?

I know of only three undecorated type 'A' pugio sheaths, POSSIBLY one undecorated type 'B' pugio sheath (I am still awaiting the report) and five frame type sheaths which very probably featured decoration which is now lost. This is out of a sample of two hundred or more known examples. The predominance of plain sheaths in the re-enactment world is not a reflection of what we know of the reality of dagger sheaths.

Regarding the cost of making pteruges, I appreciate the time and effort it has taken you to make yours, but if someone was to spend their working life making them for a living then he would probably be able to turn them out quite quickly. Add into the bargain that it would be quite likely that it could be slaves making the pteruges and then all it costs the manufacturer is raw materials and food. I suspect that the decision as to whether or not to put pteruges on a subarmalis may have had more to do with the way the manufacturer was used to doing it than it did to cost considerations or the unknown eventual wearers of the items.

Still with regard to the cost, surely the cost of making a mail shirt would far outweigh the cost of making a subarmalis with pteruges. The army appears to have picked up the cost of manufacture and them passed that cost onto the soldiers who were issued with the kit. Therefore, in all likelihood, the soldier paid for the kit he had already been issued with rather than picking and choosing what he would have in order to make the most of his budget. Soldiers were well paid by the standards of their day and the cost of equipment was deducted at source from their pay. It is clearly true that many soldiers had the resources to improve on or embellish the kit they had been issued with but that would be to replace what they had lost, damaged or sacrificed in all likelihood. It is true that soldiers could recieve gifts from their families but it is also known that they had to pay compulsory deductions towards the cost of their own funeral. Therefore the cost of a tombstone is unlikely to have fallen to a soldier's family. It also appears that the army had a 'buyback' policy, further suggesting that the majority of kit was issued rather than purchased privately. I would suggest that this would be no different for a subarmalis than for any other piece of serviceable equipment.

Incidentally, muscle cuirasses are not nearly as practical for an infantryman with a dynamic fighting style as mail, scale and segmentata are.

I feel too that the base of the column of Antoninus Pius owes more to Trajan's Column than it does to the reality of the Roman army.

Crispvs

[Marcus Mummius]

I agree with al the points Crispvs made.

When you wear a subarmalis with pteryges you can wear a much shorter hamata and still have protection in the zone the short hamata does not cover. I would think wearing a hamata with pteryges was a cheaper solution than wearing a much longer hamata.

Vale,

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Firstly, thanks for opinions!

"But back to the number and layers of Pteruges... the basis was the same for why we see many ornate pugio scabbards but, there are many more plain ones… the cost."
Do you have evidence to back this amazing statement up?

Now I’m puzzling again… in the past I had argued that there were few plain pugios and most were ornate (in my pervious posts). Other members told me I was wrong back then and stated that they had spoken to museum curators and that the ornate pugios get all the press and get placed on display… but there are boxes of plain ones sitting in the basement. In other posts I had members telling me that I was wrong about all the decorated ornate pugios I was seeing when I argued against the new Deepeeka “Plain Pugioâ€