Ptergis and Segmentata at the Turn of the Millenia AD

[Doc]

The only evidence I can think of that has pteryges with a seggie can be found on the Arch of Constantine albeit it is much later.

[Matt Lukes]

Bishop describes that in L. segmentata v. 1 as 'from an unknown monument of Marcus Aurelius, incorporated into the Arch of Constantine' (Fig. 2.4) and here's a good photo of it: [url:2co2w2yk]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Constarch_d4.jpg[/url] so the timeline isn't actually off; the issue with it is just how much artistic license is there- obviously the segmentata is extremely inaccurate and the helmets look like the odd 'eyelet' type from Trajan's Column, which seems almost as fantasy a piece as the 'Trooper' LOL - Bishop also shows an 'Antonine statuette in the British Museum shown wearing segmental armour' (Fig. 2.7), and the figure does have waist pteryges.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I don't know Matt, it looks like the shaft of the spear continuing from one stone to another behind his head, looking like the funny eye type crest.

[Matt Lukes]

Look at the guy two to the right of the segmetata guy...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ah true, I was focusing on seg man.
I can't help wondering about those little crests tho'
They must have seen them somewhere before putting them on.
The work is so detailed for it to be just a figment.

[Matt Lukes]

Huh? Nobody said it was a figment, but CLEARLY the extreme differences between the sculpture and reality show it's using a significant amount of artistic license- therefore it's not so easy to take details as accurate since few are... no?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sorry I was referring to a figment of the artists imagination/creative liscence.
I just can't help thinking there must have been something very like what he is showing used as a crest, possibly as a unit identifier?
Similar to the unique crest setup of the Lark, I think it was. Why go to all the trouble of doing it next to a feather crest?
He could have just made them all the same, couldn't he?

How exact a representation it is well I can't say I would wager any money on it. (At least not until the widget for my time machine arrives from Klepton 11) :mrgreen:

[Matt Lukes]

Or it was a style- again copied from Trajan's Column. The overall point here though is that because of the clear realism problems, while things might be 'based' on something real- there was scale and laminated armour, there were spears, there were knee-pants, the details are all pretty dodgy so it's as dodgy to see anything relatively uniuqe, like the segmentata guy wearing pteryges, as absolute truth; they're depicted quite often with scale armour and since there's a guy in scale next to the guy in the segmented armour, perhaps even the artist just wanted a continuity... who knows.

[kevair464]

So i did a little experiment with using dual belts with a Kalkreise Seggy, and I must say it worked out quite well and it actually looks pretty sharp. The belts can't cross, but the sword belt sits on top of the pugio belt, neither has an apron, but they still fit well and look nice on the seggy. I don't know if there is any evidance of this look, but it is a conjecture on my part since the kalkriese was used at a time when hamata was prevelent as was the use of dual belts. Anyone know of any evidance of this?

[Matt Lukes]

I don't recall having seen any depiction of segmentata with more than one belt (there are precious few anyway), but there doesn't seem any doubt that when two belts was the norm, they'd both be worn. Nothing prevents it, and because the sword and pugio are on different belts, really they have to both be worn. A number of grave stelae show the belts worn one above the other, not crossed, so it does seem to have been a proper 'arrangement' even if it weren't an absolute necessity on a segmentata.

[kevair464]

Thanks Matt, do we know when the shoulder baldric became the norm with the seggy? or is this also conjectural as with one belt they would have had to have the gladius suspended from "something"

[Matt Lukes]

Well they begin to appear on grave stelae in the second half of the first century CE- some speculate in conjunction with the appearance of the lighter G. pompeiiensis sword. I don't think anyone agrees about reason for the arrangement change though- the one new belt is wider than the type worn in pairs and if one narrow belt can suspend the big G. mainzensis sword, then surely one wider one could have worked with the lighter sword and pugio together. And a baldric would have done fine with the big sword, so it may be more a 'fashion' change than anything. The baldric was a return though- the Greeks used them- so really the belt was kind of the intervening suspension method that was used then discarded again.