Imperial Roman Legionary, A.D. 161–284 (War

[Anonymous]

Aaaaah !<br>
<br>
There will always be overlap <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

I learned from Ross Cowan that he is writing a third volume about the 4th to 6th century.<br>
<br>
Everyone interested is hereby invited to add their wishes about what to would like to be tackled in that volume. Although Ross can't promise anything, he will have a good look at what topics are suggested.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Uwe Bahr]

Robert,<br>
<br>
You wanted to have it in such way.<br>
<br>
I always wished Angus McBride would paint the scene when Flavius Claudius <span style="text-decoration:underline">Julianus</span> II. (at that time not yet called Apostata) held his speech to his gathered troops from a little top nearby Argentoratum, his staff around him with different and richly decorated ridge helmets, the draconarii and vexilliferi with their signs (at least one painted with the face of his governing cousin Constantius II., another with the chi-rho symbol "In hoc signo semper vincas"), one standard bearer holding his famous counter speech (... "follow Your lucky star" ..., - I like my Gore Vidal), the legions exhausted after a half day march however in good tendency, visible are their different shield designs and equipment (Cataphractarii, fectienses ), far away in the background the closely pushed wedges of the Alamanni ..., the burning sun and the wheat fields not yet harvested ...<br>
<br>
Another marvellous scene that is even well documented by the mosaics from San Vitale in Ravenna. Justinian and his dignitaries (among them the general Belizarius) and their guards with their colourful and detailed represented shields, spears and clothing, ... Justinianus may be sitting on his throne, surrounded by the splendour of the Byzantine emperor yard ...<br>
<br>
I do not know, whether this meets also the taste of the other RAT-members, it is only a modest suggestion of me ...<br>
<br>
Uwe <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=uwebahr>Uwe Bahr</A> at: 4/14/04 8:37 am<br></i>

[aitor iriarte]

Almost anything would be for good if he at least depicts soldiers armoured while fighting! <br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Ross told me the unarmoured thing was a bit of a case of 'it seemed to be a good idea at the time'.<br>
However, the artist in question (Angus McBride in this case) often does what he likes, for Osprey assign an artist to the author, and McBride has a lot of leeway with Osprey!<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Nathan Ross]

Just out of badness, and in the interests of stirring things up a bit , I would like to see the third volume illustrate troops from the army of Constantine, based on the friezes from the Arch of Constantine, and perhaps featuring some of the so-called (on this board!) 'enigma helmets', as discussed in this thread:<br>
<br>
pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm1.showMessage?topicID=807.topic<br>
<br>
Osprey have demonstrated their willingness to take chances on 'speculative reconstructions' based on pictorial evidence (the 'eagle in a cage', for example), and this might be an ideal opportunity to widen a debate about as-yet little (or un-) known types of armour and helmets used by the Roman army of this period.<br>
<br>
Mischief aside, the siege of Amida would be something I'd like to see represented. Also, perhaps a reconstruction of very late Roman troops, c575-600, of the Exarchate period - a mixture (I guess) of native Italian militia and foreign soldiers from the eastern empire.<br>
<br>
Sounds like it'll be an interesting book in any case. <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>very late Roman troops, c575-600<hr><br>
You mean early Byzantine of course, you mischievous man.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Nathan Ross]

In this case, not so mischievous... As far as I know, the period of the early exarchate (Narses and his successors) saw the establishment of the 'Exercitus Romanus', or militia-based 'self defence force' for Rome and other Italian cities, which fought alongside the 'regular Byzantine' forces in the wars against the Lombards. I confess I know very little about the armies of this period, but I've been interested for some time in what sort of soldiers might have comprised this 'Roman Army'.<br>
<br>
Whether they would still count as 'Imperial Roman Legionaries' is extremely doubtful, however! <p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Osprey have demonstrated their willingness to take chances on 'speculative reconstructions' based on pictorial evidence <hr><br>
I suspect that Osprey know very little about what chances their authors are taking! <p></p><i></i>