Unusual cavalry standard?

[hansvl]

Hi,<br>
<br>
Brittanicus, if I look at the picture well, it isn't FOES in the inscription but EQES for eq(u)es or rider. Sometimes a ranker like a signifer or other doesn't mention his rank in the inscription because it would be obvious from the image of his portrait. Now in this case it's a bit difficult for us to be certain, but perhaps his contemporaries wouldn't have had any problem interpreting him as a signifer.<br>
<br>
Hans <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

It happened more. I'll have to look for it, but I'm sure there are signifers in the images that are not in the text. Sloppily put, but you gather my drift.<br>
I emailed Corinium museum. No problem getting their permission to use the photos in the imagebase. Yay! <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Hansul and Jasper,<br>
<br>
Many thanks- especially for helping me with my reading of Latin inscriptions! FOES for EQES...d'oh!<br>
<br>
<br>
Paulus <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

i believe that many 'gravestones' dont state in the text the apparent rank/duty of the deceased.<br>
<br>
that ranks are somtimes implied by additional imagery<br>
<br>
which makes a study of text alone problematic<br>
<br>
<p><img src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.martin/forum/mark.gif
" width="100" height="100" align="right">
</p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Absolutely. Trouble is: additional imagery is not always simple to interpret. <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

But because comparison is one of the best tools for interpretation, we started the imagebase. And now Genialis is in it with complete transcription and translation. <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

That is a very interesting standard.<br>
<br>
But more intersting I find is the fact that the cavalry soldier is wearing his parade helemt in battle. This seems to support I.P STEPHENSON in his book "Roman Cavalry Equipment" where he formulates a good arguement as to why the parade helemts would have been worn in battle.<br>
<br>
(his arguement is based on the fact that vision would not be hindered any more than say a medievil knight would have been, and that the fear/ intimidation that cavalry relied heavily on in a charge would be greatly enhanced by the "faceless" helmets.)<br>
<br>
The more "bling" the soldier had the more threatening they looked. Especially against some bare skined barbarian...... <p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>I.P STEPHENSON formulates a good argument as to why the parade helmets would have been worn in battle.<hr><br>
Stephenson/Dixon (let's not forget Dixon) say that every cavalryman wore a sports helmet for battle and an open-face helmet the rest of the time.<br>
But on tombstones showing the cavalryman in action, he is never wearing a sports helmet. Why? <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

the depiction of a cavalryman possibly wearing a parade helmet on his 'tombstone' does not necessarily support the idea that parade helmets were worn in battle.<br>
<br>
the depiction can be as easily explained as the soldier being depicted in his best kit- this can also be seen with infantry figures.<br>
<br>
comparison can be made between figures on tombstones and battle scenes depicted on monuments<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p><img src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.martin/forum/mark.gif
" width="100" height="100" align="right">
</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

"But on tombstones showing the cavalryman in action, he is never wearing a sports helmet. Why? "<br>
<br>
Good point, however a counter arguement could be that the tombstones were simply depicting the deceased cavalry mans face, hence using the open style "patrol" helmets. A sort of heroic depiction of the deceased in battle. Not necessarily a true depiction of the battle dress.<br>
<br>
This lone tombstone may in fact be an example that goes against this tradition, showing the actual battle order of dress......<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

"But on tombstones showing the cavalryman in action, he is never wearing a sports helmet. Why? "<br>
<br>
Good point, however a counter argument could simply be that the tradition of the period was to show the deceased with his face while depicting him in battle. A kind of personal heroic epitaph.<br>
<br>
The actual battle dress with the parade helmet may just not have been put in these tombstones for that reason. This lone example may in fact be a change in this tradition and show the true order of dress for battle.....<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

<img src="http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/contents/iconog/provinci/adamklis/metope01.htm" style="border:0;"/><br>
Another possibility is that several of the depictions DO show parade or masked helmets,but these appear as bare headed as originally they would have been painted.<br>
<br>
One example (not a gravestone, but from the Adamklissi Tropaeum) is shown above. It is odd (also remarked on by Goldsworthy) that here is a cavalryman in battle, with a mail shirt, well caparisoned horse (possibly with a chamfron), but no helmet on the rider. I suggest that the swept back hair may indicate a full face "parade" helmet, which would have originally been painted on. Your thoughts?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Paulus<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Sorry, image didn't work. The link is at museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive...tope01.htm<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Paulus <p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>This lone example ...<hr><br>
What lone example?<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>The tradition of the period was to show the deceased with his face while depicting him in battle.<hr><br>
So how does this prove that he usually wore a sports helmet?! <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Uhm, guys, lots of standardbearers wear/show off ceremonial helmets (Gaius Valerius Secundus, Genialis, Quintus Luccius Faustus). And some of the cavalrymen at least do clearly show their helmets (i.e. Caius Romanius Capito, Annauso, Longinus). <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>