Trajan´s Column questions?

[Martin Wallgren]

Salve Patres!

I am in the state of constant research and has turned my attention to the famous column. This has resulted in a few questions I really would like to hear your opinion on. So here they are:

1) Almost all helmets look weird, why? There is attic helmets and a lot of helmets with a strange ring or something on top of it. Often the helmets have a reinforcement band going all the way around the bowl of the helmet. Is there any evidence in archaeological finds of this?

2) In the depictions on the Column the auxiliary are generally fitted in Maille and lack the soldiers belt, is this of any significance and is there any other sources confirming that this was the fact. Pretorians are depicted in many ways but has the Scorpion to distinguish them. Legionaries are very uniform . Is there confirmations of this in other contemporary sources? The Osprey Publishing: Elite, The Praetorian guard by Dr Boris Rankov states in the text to the most left picture on page 22, " The frieze has always been one of the principal sources of information about the Roman Army. In recent years, however, its rigid distinction between Pretorians and Legionaries on the one hand and Auxiliaries on the other, and the general uniformity of the various types, have increasingly been recoginised as artistic conversions." . Is this the general opinion on this forum and how should one interested in recreations handle that statement.

Many thanks!

Martin W

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

Salve,

the helmet was also discussed in this thread: HBO's "Rome" to present more realistic look at the

From that thread:
according to Jasper Oorthuys:

Feugère, Les armes des Romains on p.22 has a drawing of the Jard (Vendee) helmet, a 19th C forgery which, according to Feugere, the only helmet every found with a ringlet on top like Trajan's column.

according to Kate Gilliver:
[quote]The helmet illustrated in Watson The Roman Soldier plate 11 is allegedly from Emesa in Syria and dated to the first century AD. It was published by Cornelius Vermeule in Journal of Roman Studies 50 (1960), 8-11, with very good quality b/w illustrations. The helmet is silver (yes, silver), making it unique for Roman helmets, I think, and it’s also unique in that nothing else like it has been discovered in the archaeological record, (again, as far as I’m aware). Vermuele draws on sculptural evidence of the Arch of Constantine and Trajan’s Column for comparable pieces, and you can see one on T’s Col at the Stoa website here: http://www.stoa.org/trajan/buildtrajanpage.cgi?248

Robinson (Armour of Imperial Rome) 1975, 65, says “the silver helmet with an over-large ring said to have come from Emesa, in Syria, and now in the Toledo Museum of Art in America is, in my opinion, a complete fabrication of recent times.â€ÂÂ

[tlclark]

pelgr003\\n[quote]

according to Kate Gilliver:
[quote]
Robinson (Armour of Imperial Rome) 1975, 65, says “the silver helmet with an over-large ring said to have come from Emesa, in Syria, and now in the Toledo Museum of Art in America is, in my opinion, a complete fabrication of recent times.â€ÂÂ

[tlclark]

2) In the depictions on the Column the auxiliary are generally fitted in Maille and lack the soldiers belt, is this of any significance and is there any other sources confirming that this was the fact.

This is actually clearer on the column of Marcus Aurelius, but there are several conventions used to show 'maille' hatch marks and drilled holes. Many of the images have NO such indications, particularly those that happen in settings that are in camps.

This is just a theory, but we may be looking at some subarmalis and not know it.

As far as the variety/uniformity of units. The praetorians of course are associated with the emperor, and would serve as visual cues to his presence. The legionnaires are far less critical, this would explain why some groups are more or less depicted to a uniform standard while others are more detailed. Romans employ a hierarchy of scale and proportion. Trajan and the principals are always larger that the other figures, with Trajan being the tallest. Clearly he wasn't taller than everyone, he is just the most important part.

What does this mean for the re-enactor? Well it means that certain details may be VERY reliable because those subjects are more important, while others are much less reliable since they are not so important. Considering how well Trajan's kit matches up with other images of the musculata, I can say it must be fairly reliable.

Travis

[Crispvs]

Don't forget that the column of Marcus Aurelius is highly derivative of the column of Trajan. Also consider the oft observed fact that the solders' armour is often consciously arranged in pattern such as: soldier in segmentata, then solder in scale, then soldier in mail, then soldier in segmentata etc. This suggests that artisitic arrangment of details to be found on other monuments mattered more to sculptors of the Marcus column than accuracy.

As far as showing the subarmalis goes, why would a soldier be shown wearing a subarmalis if he was not wearing his armour? The two, surely, are meant to complement each other rather than exist exclusively of one another.

I think that the reason Trajan's kit looks so like that depicted on other sculptures is that it was carved in Rome and there would have been lots of other sculptures dressed that way to draw inspiration from. It would be more of a surprise if his kit did *not* look like the other depictions in public art.

Regarding Martin's question about the auxiliaries' lack of belts. The same feature can also be observed on the contemporary reliefs on the metopes of the tropaeum traiani at Adamklissi. The Adamklissi metopes are much more likely to depict reality than Trajan's column, so this may be a feature that the sculptors of the column got right.

Crispvs

[Martin Wallgren]

As far as showing the subarmalis goes, why would a soldier be shown wearing a subarmalis if he was not wearing his armour? The two, surely, are meant to complement each other rather than exist exclusively of one another.

Are we realy shure of that? In Medieval times the textile armour is in use separatly. Again I will stress that Textile armour is much more effective than it usually gets credit for. At any rate it is underrepresented in pictures and archaeological finds due to its nature of rotting away and that it is often the poor mans choice. With this I don´t suggest that legionarys where running around in their subarmalis only but in the irregulars and in the Auxiliary I belive it could have been one or two!

Again this is speculations from my side and comparison to the later eras of human wars!

[tlclark]

Don't forget that the column of Marcus Aurelius is highly derivative of the column of Trajan.

Indeed. There is evidence that the column of Trajan 'fixed' some of the problems of the first as well. The figures are lager and their outlines are strengthened by using a running drill. This makes them far easier to read and makes the relief 'pop' out a lot more.

Also consider the oft observed fact that the solders' armour is often consciously arranged in pattern such as: soldier in segmentata, then solder in scale, then soldier in mail, then soldier in segmentata etc. This suggests that artisitic arrangment of details to be found on other monuments mattered more to sculptors of the Marcus column than accuracy.

True, but as as is often noted, soldiers in the same units, or even the same ranks in a unit would have similar gear. So while this may be an artistic convention, it may be a convention based on a familiarity with how units are arranged. Rather than think of it as an artistic invention, it is a stylistic formalization of an already existing pattern. That means that it should be viewed cautiously, but not disregarded out of hand.

As far as showing the subarmalis goes, why would a soldier be shown wearing a subarmalis if he was not wearing his armour? The two, surely, are meant to complement each other rather than exist exclusively of one another.

Agreed, we always see trophies with both the subarmalis and the cuirass, rarely just one or the other, which indicates that they were likely thought of as a unit. Still, we see soldiers in partial kit all over the column. Some in lorica without helmets, while building, which seems odd. Would legionnaires really build in armor? Or is it an iconographic device? If so, why exclude the helmets and other features? A lot of this is guesswork, but it may be that the lorica was the only really "iconographic" part of a legionnaires kit, and that that was all that was needed to say "These are legionnaires" but they make sure to include the helmets in the battle scenes. (Though often they are missing from the calvary and officers). If we have such anomalous representations, we can't just say that they wouldn't just hang around in the subarmalis.

I think that the reason Trajan's kit looks so like that depicted on other sculptures is that it was carved in Rome and there would have been lots of other sculptures dressed that way to draw inspiration from. It would be more of a surprise if his kit did *not* look like the other depictions in public art.

Actually, images of the emperor in armor are fairly standard across the empire. Anyone carving an image of the emperor in full kit would have no problem doing it even in the far flung regions of the empire, since the image of the emperor was so ubiquitous. Provincial examples are fully in keeping with what we see in Rome as well. There is pretty broad agreement across the board. I think it's accuracy is therefore less contigent on its geography, then on the importance of the person of the emperor.

Regarding Martin's question about the auxiliaries' lack of belts. The same feature can also be observed on the contemporary reliefs on the metopes of the tropaeum traiani at Adamklissi.

Could missing belts may indicate that we are not seeing soldiers in full gear, but men in subarmalis?

The Adamklissi metopes are much more likely to depict reality than Trajan's column, so this may be a feature that the sculptors of the column got right.

Well I'm not going to win this battle here, but let me just say that in the context of its scale, size and purpose, the column of trajan is every bit as accurate as the Adamklissi monument. - IMO. The column was meant to be seen from distances of as much as 40 feet away, and the figures are much shorter than the Adamklissi monument, meaning that the detail that military historians demand of it, would have been useless to the object itself. It's like looking at a billboard with a magnifying glass and declaring it inaccurate because it doesn't render pores well enough. It's as accurate as it should be given the context and position.

As far as the accuracy of the Adamklissi monument, I have to admit I've softened on this substantially. There are a number of details on the monument that are very telling indicating a familiarity with Roman equipment, but the style is so heavy-handed that I honestly think that some historians are 'reading' details into it, rather than letting it speak for itself.

I have hard a good hard look at some of the details, and I can say with confidence that if you reconstructed you pteruges based on the Adamklissi monument you would wind up far from the mark. The same is true of the Paenula and many other features. However other features demonstrate strong affinities with what we are seeing in the archaeological finds, yet they are so stylistically rendered, it makes it hard to tell in many cases.

In both cases, it seems to me that military historians run to the monuments only for validation of pet theories. When the Column of Trajan matches something they like, they praise it, when it doesn't they condemn it, and the same goes for the Adamklissi monument. Such a perspective totally undermines the context and intent of either work which were never meant as lexicons of military equipment. Any reconstruction based on either alone should be suspect.

Travis

[Crispvs]

"Still, we see soldiers in partial kit all over the column. Some in lorica without helmets, while building, which seems odd. Would legionnaires really build in armor? Or is it an iconographic device? If so, why exclude the helmets and other features? A lot of this is guesswork, but it may be that the lorica was the only really "iconographic" part of a legionnaires kit, and that that was all that was needed to say "These are legionnaires" but they make sure to include the helmets in the battle scenes."

As someone who spends up to twenty weekends per year dressed in Roman miliatary kit for around eight hours a day, I do not find it surprising or anomalous that soldiers would be shown wearing armour but without helmets when working. I do not get hot in my armour unless it is an extremely hot day. I do get hot wearing my helmet though and normally take it off as soon as I have been dismissed following a field display. Vegetius' comment that soldiers in earlier times wore heavy leather hats so that they would not mind wearing helmets may not be true but does indicate that soldiers in times closer to his own found their helmets uncomfortable.
In battle you would wear your helmet. It exists to protect you in battle and not to wear it would be foolhardy. When doing physical work which did not run the risk of blows to the head I am sure the majority of soldiers preferred to take their helmets off and leave them close at hand. In several of the scenes on Trajan's column where legionaries are shown without helmets, helmets can be seen resting on shields or on poles. In fact the 'carrying handles' to found on many helmets may have more to do with hanging them up than actually carrying them. Soldiers wearing armour and not helmets are not anomalously dressed. They are dressed to hard labour in a combat zone where they might have to take up armed with very little warning but whilst working would wish to remain as cool as they safely could.
This does nothing in my opinion to support the idea that soldiers are shown wearing subarmali without armour. 'Subarmalis', in any case, surely means 'under armour'.

"Could missing belts may indicate that we are not seeing soldiers in full gear, but men in subarmalis?"

Not when you consider that the auxilliaries on the Adamklissi metopes (metope XIV in particular) are depicted wearing mail, which is indicated by the presence of drilled holes to imitate mail rings, a device which became a standard way to represent mail. If we were to argue that these holes indicated nothing more than textile, then a number of the legionaries on other metopes who have to be seen as wearing textile armour along with metal armguards, greaves and helmets, which seems an unlikely combination. It is more of a possibility that if weapons wear carried on baldrics, belts might not necessarily be worn whilst wearing armour. Although most re-enactors use their belts to hold their sword baldrics in place, sculptural evidence overwelmingly show baldrics passing over, rather thanunder belts, indicating that Roman soldiers did not find it necessary to hold their balrdics in place with belts. Would it therefore be necessary to wear the military belt when engaged in combat? After all, if it was not supporting the weapons what battlefield purpose was it performing? A soldier on one of the Mainz column bases also wears mail without a belt but is wearing his helmet and a sword on a baldric. If a soldier was wearing armour he was obviously a soldier. Perhaps he did not need his military belt to indicate his military status all the time.
Still not evidence for the depiction of subarmali.

"When the Column of Trajan matches something they like, they praise it, when it doesn't they condemn it"

I agree. It is far too easy to depend on the column's depiction of fort gates or marching packs because we have little else to draw on for their appearance but to dismiss it when we have better evidence. I have often felt that this approach was fraught with danger for the serious scholar or researcher and often find myself pointing this out to people.

Crispvs

[Theodosius the Great]

It would be more of a surprise if his kit did *not* look like the other depictions in public art.

Prepare to be surprised. At one point, the column shows Trajan wearing his lorica musculata without any shoulder harnesses.

Travis,

I think this may support your view that they were indeed made of leather and not metal.

What do you think ? Have you seen other occurances where the shoulder harnesses are absent ?

[tlclark]

It would be more of a surprise if his kit did *not* look like the other depictions in public art.

Prepare to be surprised. At one point, the column shows Trajan wearing his lorica musculata without any shoulder harnesses.

Actually this makes a lot of sense, and I have seen other images before, there are a few loricata without them, but I don't have any pictures.

Basically I think it demonstrates that the shoulder straps were utterly usesless by this time and largely a vestigal reference to the late hellenistic linothorax. They are the equivalent of epaulets on uniforms today, which were introduced to stop sabre slashes in cavalry attacks, but are just decoration today.

A leather harness would be easy to leave off and become a optional decorative piece of equipment.

Travis