A theory I have on the Segmentata\'s use...

[Nectanebo]

I believe current thinking is that segmented cuirasses appeared late in the 1st century BC, possibly during the civil war between Mark Anthony and Octavian.

Nectanebo, how come you believe the seg was introduced as early as 31 B.C.?

Well we know from the Kalkriese finds that the segmented cuirass was already in use at around 9 AD, and from extensive discussions on this forum and others there seems to be a body of opinion that the seg made its appearence in late 1st century BC. 31 BC is late first century, just about.

This was one of the last of those above mentioned discussions I participated in:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... adid=55605

[Tarbicus]

The earliest example found, I believe, was in Dagstatten dating to c. 9 B.C. That's a while after Octavian and Marc Antony had their head to head, and could make the reasons for its introduction quite different.

[Nathan Ross]

Isn't the Column generally felt to be MORE stylized and less realistic than artwork from the frontier area? I'm curious as to why you think Dacians carved the Adamklissi reliefs, rather than the army's own stone workers

Me too! Are the carvings of the reliefs similar to Dacian vernacular work, or something? Even so, as Matthew says, they would surely have had a very real example to work from...

Trajan's Column, all questions of workmanship aside, is surely intended as a 'readable' narrative, and as such takes narrative shortcuts - segmentata is an identifiably 'Roman' type of armour (nobody else used it, as far as I'm aware), and so it would make sense to represent all Roman troops as wearing it, to differentiate them from the auxiliaries (for example) - this seems the best explanation for the uniform appearance of the Roman soldiers on the column.

[Theodosius the Great]

One other significant aspect of the segmentata I've noticed, is it's springiness. The circular shape around the midsection (the circle being one of the strongest mathematical and structural shapes) is formed when the two sets of girdle plates are tied together. I'd be interested to see how that impacts the defense against incoming weapon blows. Maille does not obviously share this advantage.

During a test (aired on the History Channel) a bolt from a Ballista was fired at a seg and it bounced right off. I was shocked hock:

Not even a plate was torn off from its internal leather harnesses. Given those results, I can't imagine an effective weapon that would pierce a seg.

[Matt Lukes]

Although the column of trajan shows them building with segmentatae I have a hard time believing anyone built anything in armor, so maybe the artist is using the segmentatae as an iconographical reference? If so, then why not show them in helmets too?

Actually I've seen a television program from England that had a group of men 'play' Legionary for a week, performing most of the standard tasks soldiers would have done, and one thing they specifically state was that they were all surprised at how they had no difficulty working in the armor- that it was in fact quite comfortable and kept them warm in the cool and rainy British climate. I have little doubt that Legionaries would have done rather better than these regular guys who had no specific physical training. So although I agree there is a lot of stuff on Trajan's Column that must be taken with a grain of salt, the images of soldiers working in their armor seems to be quite reasonable.

Matt

[tlclark]

Wacky, from what I've heard it's the other way around in terms of reliability! Isn't the Column generally felt to be MORE stylized and less realistic than artwork from the frontier area?

Well now we are going to open up a huge interdisciplinary catfight, but, here goes.

Art historians and military historians rarely see eye to eye on these things. Military historians think Art historians are ignorant on all military matters, and art historians think military historians are delusional and basically see what they want to see when they look at the art. Both are fair accusations from time to time. This will get too big for this thread but here are the basics. Let me concentrate on the art historical issues.

There are always two strains of Roman art, an official high style and a vernacular genre style, the characteristics of both are well known. In time, the styles cross over, right about the antonine period, The best example of this is the column base of antonine pius. I can walk you through it some day it's really cool. In time the primitive native style becomes the official style (long before the Christians come on - BTW).

The column of Trajan has elements of both. The Adamklissi monument has none. It can not be founded in any tradition of Roman Art. It's an isolate. That argues heavily for local workman.

Now my pet peeves.

Whereas Trajan's Column may have been carved by foreign slaves who had never seen a legion in action.

There is, not one iota of evidence for this. This basically grows out of the old canard that Romans were not capable of such a high classical style, the whole term "Neo-attic" was invented to explain why late sarcophagi are not "roman". This is a product of greco-centric view of classical art where romans are simply 'copyists'. But its also not good observation, the column also exhibits characteristics of the the more primitive genre style.

There are all kinds of theories about models or sketchbooks that they might have worked from.

Argh! The ghosts of Andre Grabar, Weitzmann and Brilliant follow me even to RAT!!

Basically the whole model/sketchbook theory is just that...theory. My dissertation is an uphill battle against just this very issue. Everyone is arguing for a prototype or model for my manuscript despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence and I think most scholars have finally come to terms with this but the textbooks have yet to be rewritten.

Ok, that's too much and that's the last I will say on this or Jasper or Robert will tell me to stay on topic.

[Tarbicus]

Art historians and military historians rarely see eye to eye on these things. Military historians think Art historians are ignorant on all military matters, and art historians think military historians are delusional and basically see what they want to see when they look at the art.

It's a shame they don't take the attitude of the Roman military, who it would seem were avid patrons of the arts in the provinces, limited only by the skillsets of the locals, according to Artistic patronage and the Roman military community in Britain, by Martin Henig.

Architecturally, the Adamklissi Monument is superior to Trajan's Column, but not sculpturally. However, it may be that it wasn't so much only a case of the Dacian sculptors saw more soldiers than the Roman sculptors, but also that the Adamklissi sculptors had actual miltary men guiding them on the content, although their figurative skills were inferior to those employed in Rome who may well have had limited military advice on the content, but had better sculptors. If only they had swapped :wink:

[Matthew Amt]

THANK you, Travis!! (I just love catfights like that, hee hee!) Great answers, however brief, and just the reason I bounced all that off of *you* in particular. Forgive me for pushing your buttons! Note that I only quoted the common beliefs about slave artists and sketchbooks!! I completely agree with you about the annoying-ness of theories that all Roman art was copied or stolen. (Heck, we get the same effect in military studies: "Oh, you Romans stole all that stuff from the Mighty and Glorious CELTS!")

Now I'll have to read the new thread on Column vs. Adamklissi, and hopefully learn more!

Vale,

Matthew

[Goffredo]

Hi tlclarke.
If you refer to the so-called Antonius' column base in the Vatican musuem then I would be vey much interested if you could comment to us about it. I've seen it several times and am intrigued.
Cheers
Jeff

[tlclark]

Hi tlclarke.
If you refer to the so-called Antonius' column base in the Vatican musuem then I would be vey much interested if you could comment to us about it. I've seen it several times and am intrigued.
Cheers
Jeff

Love to!!

Well since we now have a new thread for discussing the value of Roman Art to the re-enactor, I will answer your question there.

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=6344

The skinny,

It's a little bit country, a little bit rock n' roll... (One Karma point to whoever guesses that obscure cultural reference!)

Travis

[ambrosius]

Donnie & Marie Osmond used to sing that on their TV show :lol:

Ambrosius

[Crispvs]

I seem to remember "I'm a little bit country", "I'm a little bit rock and roll" being part of the song that Donny and Marie Osman always sang on 'The Donny and Marie Show' in the mid to late seventies. Are you saying that everyone here is singing in the same show but likes to put their emphasis on opposite sides of a possibly imaginary fence, possibly to get more enjoyment out of it?

(I think this must be the most OT reply I have ever made)

Crispvs :oops:

[tlclark]

A karma point to both Ambrosius and Crispus for their knowledge of 70's variety show arcana!

travis

[tlclark]

Are you saying that everyone here is singing in the same show but likes to put their emphasis on opposite sides of a possibly imaginary fence, possibly to get more enjoyment out of it?

Well yeah, that's the gist.

To get back to a more on topic subject than Donny & Marie, :oops: a lot of what separates us is terminology that is arbitary and would have been just as mystifying to a Roman in his day.

To get even more back on topic, if the segmentatae were created to provide heavier (and more affordable) defenses for front rank troops, would the Romans have distinguished segmentatae from other heavy armor?

We are having this same discussion over on the Late Roman Army thread about clibinarii and cataphractii (spelling?)

Travis