Evidence of the Legio XIIII scutum emblem

[A_Volpe]

Interesting. I have debated on if to weigh in with thoughts about the hot button topics...

Anyway..

We have the reference from Vegetius that even within Cohorts of Legions that the shield emblem would be destinctive to each unit - So why can't one cohort emblem have 'wavy' bolts, and another have 'square' or none at all or something else?

What is at least consistent between the two Mainz soldiers (thanks Marsh for posting several versions of them btw), is the "hourglass" shape and the wings. I, personally see this "hourglass" as potentially representing the Boss/Umbo itself*. The wings, thunderbolts, tabula and gamma I think are indicitive of perhaps the particular Cohorts of that Legion. (there is also those peculiar "ovals" on the top and bottom of the shield of the 'fighting soldiers' image which is interesting.)

Perhaps the single soldier, holding the item, head turned left, with sword slung to the right ~ A possibility is he belongs to the 1st Cohort, and I only guess that indicated by the one set of thunderbolts (or as they are a 'pair', 2nd cohort?). Perhaps the Tabula indicate that as well; being painted on the actual shields.

In terms of the 'quality' of the sculptures, speaking as an Artist, I'd gather the work was done either by an 'amateur' artist, an artist in a real hurry - or - not worried much about exact proportion/detail; or may have been done by a soldier in the unit who had 'passable artistic skills'. Inasmuch the same variation on the 'quality' of Nose Art from WW2 bombers. heck, even the 'kill' symbols didn't take a Picasso to paint onto an aircraft. it could also be just as well that while carving, the stone may have broken inconsistently, and given the artist some real difficulty in trying to maintain close-knit detail. But, I'm leaning more towards 'unrefined skill'.

Perspective and foreshortening are among the most difficult apsects in art, nevermind getting it to look like something recognizable. That being said, I think it is a mark of a fair degree of skill and detail to the point that those of us who see the surviving artifacts can even recognize those appearing in such detail for what they are on these sculptures which have been ravaged by a millenia of exposure, that in and of itself I think is a real mark of some skill in the first place, and I think speaks a bit louder for what some are shrugging off as "accuracy". yeah, the wings are crooked and asymetrical, but who says the painted wings on the actual shields were symetrical? But the fact we recognize them/accept them representing 'wings' in the first place is significant to what the emblem looked like.

* - Regardless of the 'hourglass' device not showing a distinct 'bulge' to represent the boss 'accurately' - the mere fact that is is in the middle of the shield, also indicated by it's asymetery I think is trying to show it in persepctive, wrapped around the curvature of the shield.

Of course, this is just all guessing. But [the artist in me] is having fun looking at these surviving treasures and thinking about what they might represent.

I'd also like to point out how cool it is their helmets have *fish* embossed on the front? Why hasn't anyone made one of those helmets yet?

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

In short, we do NOT know wether or not various legions or even units in legions had the same shield emblems. no matter which sculptural so called evidence you take...

It is IMPOSSIBLE to deduct any shield emblem belonging to any specific legion. at least until the Notitia Dignitatum anyway and even then its difficult.

we just do not know.

these discussions are therefore pointless from a scientific standpoint but all the more childish from the " my group has a better shield emblem than your group" standpoint.

if you want proof, make a time machine.

M.VIB.M.

[Matt Lukes]

As for whether or not sculpture can be used to defend chord, I don't understand how it can even be suggested that it cannot

Matt, I wrote

chord: With the difficulties the artists had with perspective on the Mainz pedestals, I´d say they are useless as a source for the chord of the shields. We can say that they were curved, but that´s pretty much it.

explicitly only about the Mainz pedestals. There is other evidence in large amounts. The depth of the chord as such can IMO hardly be deduced from these. All you can say is that the shields indeed were curved - how much exactly is IMO impossible. However, luckily we have the publication of the Kasr-El-Harit shield, and some of the fragments from Masada. These are far more helpful in defining the depth of the shields than the Mainz Pedestals are.

Alright, but is not the issue chord in general? And if so many others show the same thing that can be seen in the Mainz pedestal, doesn't that suggest that it's as interpreted? I don't think it was ever suggested that the MP was the only piece of evidence that supported a deep chord- it's just the one Marsh decided to show. I could post 6 or 8 other, different depictions that all show it...

[Hibernicus]

The CHORD is the distance across the arc described by the face of the shield.

The diameter of a circle is a CHORD. Its the longest chord on a circle.

http://rlqm.com/LEG.XIV.Scutum.Info/chord.jpg

The depth of the arc..., a line perpendicular at the center of the chord to the arc is called the SAGITTA (The same line is called the radius if its on the chord called the diameter)

Most new LEG IX scutums have a SAGITTA of 7 inches. Some old IX luan shields had a sagitta of 4.5".

The Final report on Dura shows a site drawing that gives the famous DURA scutum a 9" sagitta, but that is in doubt as the scutum was in crushed and in 13 pieces.

Two shields with the same chord but having different face lengths will have different sagitta.

Bend a 34" shield into a 26" chord
Bend a 30" shield into a 26" chord
.. two different sagitta.

Geometry...

Hibernicus

[M. Demetrius]

The chord is the string, the arc (section of the circumference) is the bow, and the sagitta is the arrow, so to speak. Fairly easy to remember if you don't forget that the chord is the cord.

[Crispvs]

"Not trying to disprove, just providing the evidence for two others. LEG II AVGVSTA and LEG I ADIUTRIX"

To that we might also add Legio VIII Augusta. C. Valerius Crispus has a shield which features gamma shapes in the corners, tabulae ansatae and a decorative boss but is otherwise plain. It is supprted by the find of the decorative Leg VIII boss from the Tyne.

Regarding the shape of Leg XIIII shields,as far as I know, no definitely attested leg XIIII shows a straight sided shield. Musius, Faustus and Secundus all have oval shields, and P. Flavoleius Cordus apparently has a wide oval shield. Admittedly this is only four examples but they are the only ones I know of which are actually attributed to Leg XIIII. The shield blazon from the Mainz column base certainly seems to be the same as that of Cn. Musius and an all probablity is, but there is no inscription which definitely says that the sculpture in particular is intended to represent a soldier of Legio XIIII, although it is true that that the 14th were based there at around the same time.

Regarding the shields shown on the Adamklissi metopes, very few of these are actually shown as straight sided as such. Most could be described as polygonal. What relationship these shapes had to those of the original shields which were being depicted is of could a matter for eternal debate.


Crispvs