Shield cover depicted on monument??

[sulla felix]

Interestingly, though, the soldier on the right is holding his clipeus with a two-point grip, like you would expect to see on an aspis. Is that the way it looks to anyone else?

Indeed David and there are many more like this:

[sulla felix]

I guess it comes down to what is convention, and what is real detail?

When you get a chance to look at the detail of the colum real close it starts to make you wonder about some of the arguements that it cannot be relied on for evidence of equipment etc.

Just look at the kit in this picture (patera etc.), and the detailed rendering of the caliga. But then look at the seg? :?

[Tarbicus]

Everyone in Rome cooked, and soldiers visiting the city wore their caligae.

[sulla felix]

..and all those soldiers vsiting the city left their kit in a big pile outside the pomerium....nah, do not buy that. But I guess it is an argument that will never be resolved.

[Tarbicus]

..and all those soldiers vsiting the city left their kit in a big pile outside the pomerium....nah, do not buy that. But I guess it is an argument that will never be resolved.

Buy it or not, it was illegal to wear arms and armour there, and there was simply no need to take armour to Rome (but the gladius and pugio could be taken to deter bandits en route IIRC - I've posted somewhere a paper on banditry before). The very distribution of the legions around the Empire clearly tells us that there was no need for full arms and armour inside Italy, surely? You can't get around the simple fact that it was illegal for armies to wear their military gear inside the walls of Rome. In fact, when youths playfully cut the military belts of soldiers on leave the men went on the rampage (even killing one of their fathers). But there's no mention of armour in the source IIRC.

Is there a single account of legionaries wearing armour inside Rome when they weren't there for a triumph, or to take it by force, or to intimidate, en masse? What makes you think there was nowhere outside the pomerium to leave arms, or even at the gates?

It was a big deal to the Romans. Do modern British or American soldiers take their rifles home when on leave from Iraq or Afghanistan, or carry them around town when on leave from base wearing their kevlar as well? I know for an absolute fact that British soldiers aren't even allowed to bring their knives back into the country (please don't dispute that, it's a plain fact spoken from the horse's mouth).

[sulla felix]

I have read on many many occasions that it was "illegal" to wear armour or carry arms inside Rome, but nobody has actually posted the evidence for this (despite my asking the question) - is this just an assumption? I would really like to see the evidence, not just for arguement's sake, but I really want to know!

Do modern British or American soldiers take their rifles home when on leave from Iraq or Afghanistan, or carry them around town when on leave from base wearing their kevlar as well? I know for an absolute fact that British soldiers aren't even allowed to bring their knives back into the country (please don't dispute that, it's a plain fact spoken from the horse's mouth

- What has this got to do with the point in question? What modern armies may or may not do has very little to do with the armies of the ancients.

As I have posted before IMHO it makes no sense for an essentially militaristic society not to know what armour soldiers are wearing, what equipment they carry etc.

Apologies to Ade for getting off the topic of the thread!

[Tarbicus]

Actually, I have to correct myself when I said they wore armour during triumphs as (IIRC) they had to wear their civilian dress, and temporarily lost their status as soldiers to become ordinary citizens when entering the pomerium. Carrying a weapon into the pomerium was considered blasphemy (praetorians had to wear civilian dress and became cohors togata, no?).

Didn't the lictors even have to remove the axe blades from the fasces before entering the pomerium?

[Quintius Clavus]

The evidence for NOT wearing armor during a triumph is on the Arch of Titus. The soldiers there are only wearing tunics - no armor, no helmets. I even think they are wearing plain belts, rather than what we think of as the military belt of this time period - 70 AD or so.

[Peroni]

What scene from the column is that from? What are the Auxilia doing?

They are taken from Scene CXXXI and they are the foremost of a group of soldiers crossing a river on a bridge. So, it would seem quite appropriate for the guy to have his shield covered whilst marching.

Let us not forget that at least seven sculptors styles have been identified on the Column, and each would render the figures in their own style.

That's why we see differences in the armour and helmet types depicted. Why shouldn't it be the same for shields? Some sculptors show the inner face of the shield with a very wide band/outer edge (see Sulla Felix's pics earlier in the thread) whilst others show a narrow line like the edging we see in the archaeological record.

[Ceasar Augustus]

I see, although I thought the Romans had rectangular shields. Any thoughts on this?

[Marcus_Ulpius_Trajanus]

What scene from the column is that from? What are the Auxilia doing?

They are taken from Scene CXXXI and they are the foremost of a group of soldiers crossing a river on a bridge. So, it would seem quite appropriate for the guy to have his shield covered whilst marching.

Let us not forget that at least seven sculptors styles have been identified on the Column, and each would render the figures in their own style.

That's why we see differences in the armour and helmet types depicted. Why shouldn't it be the same for shields? Some sculptors show the inner face of the shield with a very wide band/outer edge (see Sulla Felix's pics earlier in the thread) whilst others show a narrow line like the edging we see in the archaeological record.

Interesting. Nice catch there.

[Matthew Amt]

I see, although I thought the Romans had rectangular shields. Any thoughts on this?

Goodness, you're new to this, eh? No problem, but someone will probably throw a lot of good book titles at you. Welcome!

It is generally believed that Roman legionaries used rectangular shields at least in the first and second centuries AD, though there is some debate as to how many of them did, or in what circumstances. (I think most of them did, most of the time!) However, Roman auxiliaries (typically non-citizens enlisted from the provinces) seem to have most often used oval shields or other shapes, rather than rectangles. Usually.

There are also variations on the rectangular scutum, such as this:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/augscutum.jpg

This is often called "Augustan" since it shows up on artwork from the late first century BC and early first century AD, but it still is seen on Trajan's Column as well, right alongside the rectangular style. No big difference.

Then there is the earlier "Republican" shape,

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/hastati.jpg

Comes into use way back in the early Republic, and still seen on a few first century AD reliefs.

Read, read, read! But don't be afraid to ask more questions here. Vale,

Matthew

PS: Someone will also ask you to add your real name to your signature, in accordance with the forum rules.

[Ceasar Augustus]

Oh I didn't realize that. I'll get my name on my signature. For now,

John

[Matt Lukes]

Whilst recently viewing the casts of Trajan's Column at the EUR I spotted a couple of shields that appeared to have designs painted on the inner face. (Harder to see on the real monument)

The one on the far right is a wave pattern with an oval shape beneath each wave. The edge of the shield is also clearly defined. The soldier next to him also appeared to have a design too, but on closer insopection, the shield's edge was not defined

Interesting idea, but if the immediately adjacent has a different pattern on the reverse of his shield, doesn't it make rather more sense to interpret both as painted designs? The front designs of scuta on the Column are all in relief so it'd be reasonable to expect the back, if painted, to be as well.

[Ceasar Augustus]

Possibly, but I'm not convinced