08-21-2006, 05:10 PM
Ave, Luca!
You bring up very good points re: iron vs bronze. Still, bronze has an unfortunate way of ending up recycled into something else later on (statues, cannon), for the very reason you state (it doesn't corrode as iron does).
I would love to read your essay someday (I am assuming it's probably written in Italian, which I have yet to master). If you have a chance, please post a link to it, or email me at [email protected] I am always looking for more research into this topic.
I did not mean to imply that the PG did not wear segmentata, and apologize if it sounded as such. I originally stated that I feel strongly that they had both armors, one for field campaigns and one for palace duty. I even doubt that every PG would have had the traditional armor... perhaps a few hundred (or even a few dozen?) sets could have been used interchangeably by those on duty, or when the occasion called for it. Roman men of the period (especially those selected for duty in the PG) seem to conform to a rather uniform physical appearance, so this would not have been difficult. But anyone wearing the traditional armor would certainly have had the helmet to match.
(I prefer the term "traditional" or "classical" over that of "parade", which would denote a certain flimsiness... the muscle cuirass served the Greeks very well in close combat for centuries.)
My friends and I looked very closely at Coh III and the other PG reenactors, Coh I, when we formed ours (not even a unit, really, just a few friends who do this as an alternate impression; we also do legionaries, gladiators, and LR). The Italian groups are immaculate in their appearance, and very believable. Your unit's lion in particular is spectacular! (Sadly, mine came with no paws, so I haven't done anything with it yet.) We just thought it would be nice to attempt the classical look, which seemes to us had to have existed, based on the amount of representational evidence left behind to attest to it. And if it did exist, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be represented, at least once, in the world's Roman reenactment community.
And I agree, the Deepeeka muscelata is quite awful. An extreme disappointment, since it takes just as much effort to make it this way as it would one that is closer to evidence, or at least more anatomically correct. We don't allow them either; ours are custom-built, mostly by Antoni Feldon. The cost of this impression makes it quite prohibitive compared to legionary impressions... yet another factor I suspect was analogous to the real PG.
I appreciate the opportunity to express these ideas, knowing that they do not conform to what is generally said of PG uniforms by contemporary experts. Just based on the representational evidence alone, I feel that the margin of doubt is definitely large enough to allow for both uniforms to be represented in the Roman reenacting community.
Very best wishs to you and Coh III Prae,
M VALERIVS / Jim Whitley
You bring up very good points re: iron vs bronze. Still, bronze has an unfortunate way of ending up recycled into something else later on (statues, cannon), for the very reason you state (it doesn't corrode as iron does).
I would love to read your essay someday (I am assuming it's probably written in Italian, which I have yet to master). If you have a chance, please post a link to it, or email me at [email protected] I am always looking for more research into this topic.
I did not mean to imply that the PG did not wear segmentata, and apologize if it sounded as such. I originally stated that I feel strongly that they had both armors, one for field campaigns and one for palace duty. I even doubt that every PG would have had the traditional armor... perhaps a few hundred (or even a few dozen?) sets could have been used interchangeably by those on duty, or when the occasion called for it. Roman men of the period (especially those selected for duty in the PG) seem to conform to a rather uniform physical appearance, so this would not have been difficult. But anyone wearing the traditional armor would certainly have had the helmet to match.
(I prefer the term "traditional" or "classical" over that of "parade", which would denote a certain flimsiness... the muscle cuirass served the Greeks very well in close combat for centuries.)
My friends and I looked very closely at Coh III and the other PG reenactors, Coh I, when we formed ours (not even a unit, really, just a few friends who do this as an alternate impression; we also do legionaries, gladiators, and LR). The Italian groups are immaculate in their appearance, and very believable. Your unit's lion in particular is spectacular! (Sadly, mine came with no paws, so I haven't done anything with it yet.) We just thought it would be nice to attempt the classical look, which seemes to us had to have existed, based on the amount of representational evidence left behind to attest to it. And if it did exist, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be represented, at least once, in the world's Roman reenactment community.
And I agree, the Deepeeka muscelata is quite awful. An extreme disappointment, since it takes just as much effort to make it this way as it would one that is closer to evidence, or at least more anatomically correct. We don't allow them either; ours are custom-built, mostly by Antoni Feldon. The cost of this impression makes it quite prohibitive compared to legionary impressions... yet another factor I suspect was analogous to the real PG.
I appreciate the opportunity to express these ideas, knowing that they do not conform to what is generally said of PG uniforms by contemporary experts. Just based on the representational evidence alone, I feel that the margin of doubt is definitely large enough to allow for both uniforms to be represented in the Roman reenacting community.
Very best wishs to you and Coh III Prae,
M VALERIVS / Jim Whitley
