The Technical Anomalies of Trajan\'s Column

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Robert, I was not using the drawings as sources just comparisons and I am pretty sure that they are probably not correct.

My mistake Michael - it seems we are in agreement!

[Alanus]

I thank you all for the thoughtful responses.

Like Renatus and Michael, I accept Tacitus' description of both the contus and long-sword as being two-handed. Some authors wrote carefully and accurately in their use of language, Tacitus and Herodotus being my favorites. A great number of two-handed swords of this early period have been found, and they are identical to those depicted on the Orlat Plaque. We don't see these swords rendered correctly on Trajan's Column... nor do we see akinakae, about as common as a modern table-knife, actually used as an eating knife among its other uses. Every Roxolanus must have carried one.

But as Robert hammered home-- horses with scales "growing" down to their hooves-- can only arrive from an artist's imagination and nowhere else. This is ultimate fantasy. I was joking about my helmet, and hopefully it's the most accurate reproduction of the banded pre-Spangenhelm of that period. Yet, as Longovicium noted, the Column is an admixture of reality and myth. We rarely see it in Roman art. And I suppose that's what makes Trajan's Column so interesting.

[Scipio Second]

At risk of offending some of my brethren, I am bemused by those who look for an accurate representation in Trajan's column and similar art. First, it was clearly intended to be propaganda for the emperor. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the scenes reflected are the artists' idealization or creation, and artistic license is a given. As with all art, the work is the artist's interpretation, and embellishment of patriotic themes should be understood. So, are there anomalies, certainly. Why is there surprise?

[Alanus]

Hello, Pierre

I don't think anything on Trajan's Column is a surprise to many of us, and you're not offending anyone. We've been looking at it for a long time, as various parts of the Column are frequently used to illustrate historical accuracy within a reenactor's kit. My initial question on the original post was simply asking-- what was real and what was not?

You've noted, "As with all art, the work is the artist's interpretation." However, if you study Roman art on the whole, you will find it bereft of imagination. Roman art is very straight-forward and realistic... perhaps with the exception of Venus standing on a clam-shell. I have viewed original Roman art in Herculanium, Pompeii, the National Museum, and several other Italian museums. And I have not seen much beyond realism. Then-- Whammo!-- we are hit with lizard-horses on the Column.

Only recently have we seen critiques in print of the artwork on Trajan's Column, and it remains not a surprise but a series of anomalies. As such, I felt it would make an interesting topic. ;-)

[Renatus]

However, if you study Roman art on the whole, you will find it bereft of imagination . . . Then-- Whammo!-- we are hit with lizard-horses on the Column.

Isn't that the point? The Roman artist was presented with a description of something he had never seen nor was ever likely to see - men and horses entirely covered with scale armour. Does he try to interpret what he has been told or consider its practical aspects? No, he follows his brief to the letter and offers a literal representation of the description given to him. And what does he produce? Lizard horses and lizard men!