scale armour

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

do we have any evidence that scale armour (squamata) was worn often by auxiliary infantry <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

No we don't.<br>
But neither have we good evidence that Legionaries wore the plate armour ('segmentata) and the Auxiliaries mail armour (hamata).<br>
The cohorts may have worn no standard armour at all, but several styles. Momuments such as Trajan's Column may distort the view through artistic simplification. <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>

[Ebusitanus]

Not only Trajan´s Column, but also several Triumph Arcs and the Column of Marc Aurelius.<br>
<br>
I do not understand why everyone takes such hits at the despictions made at the Trajan Column? Why would one think that a monument made on orders of the Emperor himself, which I bet he supervised once in a while, with Veterans available everywhere, with spare equipment available for such an artistic undertaking by the Empire itself, with artists that might have been along Trajan´s entourage during the Campaign, good enough to despict faithfully watchtowers, Tortoise formations, slingers, auxilaries, pontoon bridges, Dacian enemies and their equipment, etc, etc... Must have taken artistic license when doing this masterpiece?<br>
It sounds like we are talking about ONE artist making the column during a weekend...That work must have taken months by many many skilled artists.<br>
<br>
Could it be not easier to say that perhaps we are missing excavated equipment rather than to say the artist did what he wanted on a whim?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Following a previous issue...Could those Scales have been of Leather too? <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

I think you're making too big a case of this. With 'artistic licence' I would myself mean that something wrong was done. I think that's not the case here.<br>
For me, I think the artist had in mind to make some distinction between troop types, and he decided to give one type segmentatas and the other hamatas. Nothing wrong with that, and no more different than an artist who chooses to show a hamata by making small dots instead of accurately portraying links. This is very normal for the artistic expression of the time, and there's nothing wrong with that.<br>
<br>
What was wrong was the 'experts' later deciding, on the basis of Trajan's Colomn and other examples, that <em>only</em> legionaries could wear segmentatas and the auxiliaries could <em>only</em> wear hamatas. As if that were some general rule.<br>
I think that the current evidence has overturned that way of thinking (luckily!), but it has not sunk in yet with the masses, and from time to time we still encounter that old dogma: legions-segmentata/auxiliary-hamata.<br>
<p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>

[Ebusitanus]

Oh, ok...I can agree with that<br>
<br>
I just had a little debate on a Yahoo Roman Reenactor list and the idea came about how we should discard Roman despictions of its own troops on monuments set and done in the Capitol and instead focus on the frontier monuments as more acurate. While I´m sure frontier monuments are great sources, to imply from that that the Trajan Column was some sort of a joke because the Hamatas shown "fit to tightly" is not correct in my books. <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

The academic community has not decided on Trajan's Column either. Some (Mike Bishop, Jon Coulston, for instance) are more sceptical than others (for instance M.Speidel (the elder)). <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Flavius Promotus]

I would take a look at the carvings of the Adamclissi monument. They look much cruder than the column, but are perhaps more 'real'. The legionaries (?) depicted there usually wear squamata or hamata. <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Ebusitanus, Jasper,<br>
<br>
As a historian, I often wonder about the modern use of ancient sources, written as well as artistic.<br>
I also had some discussions recently (with archaeologists and linguists mostly) about classical sources. And I must say, the lack of critical approach still baffles me. It is very normal to come across academic opinions where a source is either totally discarded because of some 'misunderstood' error (such as you mention about the Column) or uncritically believed from A to Z.<br>
Very dangerous is e.g. to propose that a Roman author like Tacitus does not write 'the truth'because his audience did not expect that from him. Such an argument, which is very normal for a historian, is usually totally misunderstood by other academics.<br>
Hence my opinion about ancient artists and their way to show 'correct' armour. Thanks for the reaction. <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>

[Tarbicus]

They were the picture books of their day (kind of), so, as illustrations, I should imagine clarity in order to depict the events would be an important issue. Separating the legionaries and auxilia using different armour types does make sense. It's what I would do, and filmmakers do it also. What changed so much to suppose the viewing public is so much different today?<br>
<br>
Jim/Tarbicus <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>What changed so much to suppose the viewing public is so much different today?<hr><br>
Well, I suppose that's why filmmakers do it today - they suppose simplicity comes before accuracy. Which may be correct, but as a re-enactor I won't go by that rule. If the audience don't get it, they're more liable to ask questions. And personally, if that means a group in a mix of styles, so much the better. I hate everyone turning up in a 'uniform' mode! <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>