Dating of this "Dacian" relief ?

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

Can someone please tell me what era this famous relief panel dates to ? IIRC, it resides in the Louvre and shows a Roman fighting a Dacian.

So, it must date to Domitian's or Trajan's reign. Anyone know which it is ?

I'm interested in the squamata pattern of the Roman soldier. It has a squarish neck hole and no shoulder doubling. The plates seem to have a vertical dent as well. Presumably he's a regular legionary.

Thanks in advance.

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

Can someone please tell me what era this famous relief panel dates to ? IIRC, it resides in the Louvre and shows a Roman fighting a Dacian.

So, it must date to Domitian's or Trajan's reign. Anyone know which it is ?

It's from Trajan's Forum, so it postdates 106 and probably 112, when the Forum was opened. A hadrianic date can not be excluded, cf. Trajan's Column, which is also post-117.

[Theodosius the Great]

Yes, I was beginning to suspect a Hadrianic date since the Roman is clearly bearded.

Any thoughts as to his status ? Since he's not wearing a segmentata could that perhaps suggest he's a auxiliary ?

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

Yes, I was beginning to suspect a Hadrianic date since the Roman is clearly bearded.

For a moment I thought you had confused a part of his helm with his beard, but you are right, the Roman is indeed bearded.

Any thoughts as to his status ? Since he's not wearing a segmentata could that perhaps suggest he's a auxiliary ?

I don't know.

[Theodosius the Great]

Thank you, Jona.




~Theo

[Peroni]

Since he's not wearing a segmentata could that perhaps suggest he's a auxiliary ?

No I don't think so. I think all we can say is that he is a soldier. There are a lot of seg finds from auxiliary forts and deposits which include segmentata alongside discharge diplomas of auxiliary soldiers. I don't think we can categorically say that the auxilia never wore segmented plate armour.

[Theodosius the Great]

Since he's not wearing a segmentata could that perhaps suggest he's a auxiliary ?

No I don't think so. I think all we can say is that he is a soldier. There are a lot of seg finds from auxiliary forts and deposits which include segmentata alongside discharge diplomas of auxiliary soldiers. I don't think we can categorically say that the auxilia never wore segmented plate armour.

That sounds like very strong evidence for wide spread use of segmented armor. So, its absence or presence doesn't seem to help identify the soldier as you imply.

The best clue for the soldier's status is probably his shield which can be seen in part between the Dacian's arm and forehead. It seems to be rectangular in shape or perhaps hexigonal.

There's also an outside chance he's a Praetorian. Dio Cassius mentions the Praetorians wearing scale armor in his day.

~Theo

[mcbishop]

Yes, I was beginning to suspect a Hadrianic date since the Roman is clearly bearded.

IIRC (having looked through hundreds of Coulston's photos of the wretched thing), some of the soldiers on Trajan's Column are bearded, they just lack the full beard of Hadrian.

Mike Bishop

[mcbishop]

Since he's not wearing a segmentata could that perhaps suggest he's a auxiliary ?

No I don't think so. I think all we can say is that he is a soldier. There are a lot of seg finds from auxiliary forts and deposits which include segmentata alongside discharge diplomas of auxiliary soldiers. I don't think we can categorically say that the auxilia never wore segmented plate armour.

They may well have worn it, but there is no unequivocal evidence that they did ;-) The assumption that 'segmentata from forts must be auxiliary because it comes from auxiliary forts' is a non sequitur (since it depends on the definition of a fort as being auxiliary; Vindolanda, for example, has clear written proof of legionaries having been there but it is always defined as an auxiliary fort). Just as 'legionary fortresses' had auxiliaries based in them, so 'auxiliary forts' could contain legionaries, hence the non sequitur.

Conventions in metropolitan propaganda sculpture during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD tend to equate segmentata with citizen troops and other types of armour with non-citizen troops types, but these are scarcely an authoritative guide to what was used by the army except insofar as they should at least approximate to the expectation of their intended public (so Joe Soap in the Roman street may have expected segmentata usually to appear on citizen troops).

Forgive me if I keep on about this, but every time this old chesnut rears its ugly head it is necessary to shoot it down - and if that's not a mixed metaphor I don't know what is. It is all a matter of what you can and cannot say from the evidence (such as it is).

Mike Bishop