Evidence of the Legio XIIII scutum emblem

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

This post has been removed by the author. I do not see a point to being on a forum where moderators such as Matt Lanteigne aka Magnus can practice harassment and hypocritical behavior. RAT seems to have slippe dinto a place where people of this ilk can do or say whatever they want AND since he's a moderator, I guess it's all okay. Good luck, but I am done here.

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

This post has been removed by the author. I do not see a point to being on a forum where moderators such as Matt Lanteigne aka Magnus can practice harassment and hypocritical behavior. RAT seems to have slipped into a place where people of this ilk can do or say whatever they want AND since he's a moderator, I guess it's all okay w/ the forum owners. Good luck, but I am done here.

[Magnus]

Marsh, you've been warned previously that what goes on with RAG should stay there. If you want to start a new topic here, please leave out the Sean and Dan references. Also, if Dan wishes to post here in defence of himself, he is more than able to do so.

[jkaler48]

It occurs to me that though the lighting bolts appear to be wavy (and may have been on the actual shield) that the artist may have represented them that way knowing that everyone knew what they really looked like so all he had to do was give an impression of the elements rather than a 100% accurate copy. It would explain the tiny wings also. It would mean that either squared up lighting bolts OR wavy ones are equally valid interpretations of the evidence and both not out place in an Reenactment impression. Let us not go to war over which end of the egg is the proper one
to open it from.

[caiusbeerquitius]

1.: Is there any evidence for uniform shield devices at all? I´d say: No
2.: The drawing, which I´m quite sure is Lindenschmidt´s, is not so accuarte in the display of the lightning bolts. On the stone they are curved, in the drawing zick-zack-lines. Apparently Lindenschmidt was interpreting a bit...
3. Why should only an aquilifer carry an oval shield? Evidence from contemporary material? I have explained elsewhere hat the oval shields IMO were more common than the rectangular ones, and was able to back this up. (art, Masada, shield bosses) Square shields in large numbers may just be right for the troops fighting in the Dacian wars.
4. 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.
5. One might me able to say from the Mainz pedestals shields that two of the shields have straight sides but a curved top and bottom, one a straight top and side and a curved bottom, and one is square altogether. Since these differences are clear (from the square shield we know that the maker was able to recognize and display these), the pedestals might help in this matter.

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

This post has been removed by the author. I do not see a point to being on a forum where moderators such as Matt Lanteigne aka Magnus can practice harassment and hypocritical behavior. RAT seems to have slipped into a place where people of this ilk can do or say whatever they want AND since he's a moderator, I guess it's all okay w/ the forum owners. Good luck, but I am done here.

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

This post has been removed by the author. I do not see a point to being on a forum where moderators such as Matt Lanteigne aka Magnus can practice harassment and hypocritical behavior. RAT seems to have slipped into a place where people of this ilk can do or say whatever they want AND since he's a moderator, I guess it's all okay w/ the forum owners. Good luck, but I am done here.

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

This post has been removed by the author. I do not see a point to being on a forum where moderators such as Matt Lanteigne aka Magnus can practice harassment and hypocritical behavior. RAT seems to have slipped into a place where people of this ilk can do or say whatever they want AND since he's a moderator, I guess it's all okay w/ the forum owners. Good luck, but I am done here.

[Hibernicus]

Marsh is that a copy of Dr Ludwig Lindenschmidt 1880's drawing?

Where did you get it? Source, please!

Sean / Hibernicus

[Peroni]

mostly trying to disprove Dan Peterson's claim that it is the only Legion that we know exactly what its scutum emblem was.

Not trying to disprove, just providing the evidence for two others. LEG II AVGVSTA and LEG I ADIUTRIX.
See my post in the other thread.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 444#210444

[texascavtrooper]

Hello all,
I have been watching this thread with a little doubt as to who is right. I looked over the photo of the shield in the first photo. I can see where you both could be right. The bolt on the right has a definite zig-zag where as the one on the left has a more rounded sway to the second and third curves. As well as the bottom bolt on the left.The first switch has a sharper turn though. So who is really right here??? :? ? I and I mean think that perhaps one bolt may have been swayed and one sharp. Who knows for sure,,,,,,,,,,,,nobody dose! Let us face it , it could just be the way the artist wanted to do them. As for the shape of the shield I had posed the question, Could the different shield shapes denote different types of troops? I have yet to hear a reply to this. If I am totally wrong please excuse my ignorance.
Bryan

[Matt Lukes]

Notice too that the really tiny wings aren't equally rotated- to me very clear evidence the sculptor wasn't exactly in top form here, which, combined with the not exactly high-accuracy sizing, etc., really makes this tombstone for me not reasonable to use to pick at tiny details; the wavy lightning bolts could be correct, or they could be this artist's laziness or just his own 'version'- the same for the scutum size and shape, although I don't think it's reasonable to explain away the overall shape, it's clearly ovoid.

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- there is SO much material, crudely-carved right to extremely well-carved, that shows the curvature to be very significant, that it can't be explained away by 'artistic license', 'perpsective inaccuracy', etc. In fact, it's often the perspective style that confirms it for me- scuta are often carved such that the nearly edge-on curvature form of both the top and bottom are shown together (which isn't possible visually), which is a clear deliberate attempt to show the shape in a flat relief.

And carvings aren't the only things there are- there's at least one nice bronze miniature gladiator statuette that has a very curved scutum. And before anyone argues that it's not a military shield, I'll say it's not evidence in a vacuum, but simply shows that curvature was significant in some places, and that does support other clear evidence (the sculpture- in overwhelming amounts) :wink:

[caiusbeerquitius]

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.

[Hibernicus]

Marsh confirmed that the drawing of Cn Musius are by Dr Ludwig Lindenschmidt from Osprey Battle tactics 109 BC–AD 313 Elite #155 pp. 9 Thanks Marsh

Well this is very very good!

I think what we have is a suggestion of what a Leg XIV scutum emblem may have looked like. Mr Peterson has interpreted the bolts as being a bit more angular than wavy than perhaps the may been carved to be. Or maybe 1900 years of time has had its toll on sharp edges.... Or maybe the stone couldn't hold sharp edges... Or maybe.... ad infinitum....

We must also not forget that the stele of Cn Musius was likely painted which means that the stubby cherubim style wings may have been only part of what the completed shield emblem originally looked like.

It is clear to me that Mr Peterson's Legio XIIII shield embelm is an interpretation of known emblem elements combined with a guess at coloration and shape.... as much an interpretation as the emblems of most clubs around the world.. perhaps closer to what an actual Legio used but still an interpretation rather than a factual representation.

What's obvious, (isn't it?), is that no one is right or more right or less right!

[M. Demetrius]

going to do like Dan P. suggested and get a couple of big refrigerator boxes and make some dummy scuta

As I have said elsewhere, I've tried that, and to make the curves stay, you will certainly need to fasten the two layers together. The issue is that cardboard will try to go flat if you let it.

I used glue, although a good type of double faced tape might work, or perhaps just stitching/lacing it together with some seine line or mason's twine. The advantage of the latter method is that you can untie the strings and make a new radius without destroying the previous work. When I made the mockup I did, I sent the grip attachment through both layers, and fastened it on the outside. Appearance wasn't the aim, it was how to make the grip stay on without using difficult things like rivets, etc., while working with cardboard. (Imagine a red hot rivet on a cardboard shield! End of experiment! :lol: )

If I were to repeat the experiment, I'd use string for attachment, and wide tape around the outer edges. Tape can be cut and reapplied. Glued cardboard shreds when one tries to "unglue" it.