Louvre \'praetorian\' tunic observation

[Crispvs]

In the current debate on musculata over on the leather armour thread one of the figures from the so-called Louvre Praetorian Relief has been discussed somewhat in the past day or two.
What interests me about this figure is the way his tunic (for want of a better word) is pulled in towards his neck, allowing the folds of the tunic to carry on up to his shoulders. I can see no hint of brooches close to the neck which might have made this possible. So how does the garment hang the way it does rather than simply flopping down to hang over the shoulders?



Crispvs

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Crispus,

Here's some useful info about this sculpture :

The lower half of the left hand figure, portions of the middle two, and the heads of all three in the foreground are modern restorations.

Hi Matt,

I'll respond to your rebuttals here since it's a more appropriate thread.

I don't even see why [pteruges] have to be associated with a subarmalis- is there any reason to believe the under-armor padding always had the pteruges as an integral part of it, or could they have been attached to a separate garment?

I've never heard of such a possibility. There's literary evidence for subarmalis, so that's why I stick with this possiblity. I will always cite support for my assumptions when asked. But where's there evidence for this other garment you speak of ?

I really don't see why the simplest explanation is so hard to believe- that he's just not wearing any armor

I agree it's one possibility. But I think it's equally possible it's chain mail because chain mail is form-fitting, which would account for his torso not being so bulky as his two friends. And the double-shoulder type was not omnipresent, as you said.

It's my understanding that all of them are armored differently

Actually, the only two whose armor can be seen are musculata types.

One reason, however, that I find the missing of some detail by the sculptor hard to accept though, is the fact that there is so much detail- if it were a crude tombstone, I could see it, but this one has quite striking detail.

Maybe this example will shatter your faith in the artist's abilities to capture everything :



See how the artist here tries but fails to create an illusion of 3-dimensions ? When you look at the chariot, it kills the illusion. Clearly, some effects were beyond the artists' skills.

[Matt Lukes]

I don't even see why [pteruges] have to be associated with a subarmalis- is there any reason to believe the under-armor padding always had the pteruges as an integral part of it, or could they have been attached to a separate garment?

I've never heard of such a possibility. There's literary evidence for subarmalis, so that's why I stick with this possiblity. I will always cite support for my assumptions when asked. But where's there evidence for this other garment you speak of ?

I didn't mention a specific garment that requires evidence- I simply asked a question. Is it completely outside the realm of possibility to think anything other than that pteruges always had to be associated with under armor padding (subarmalis)? Okay now it occurs to me that the issue here may be semanitc- is subarmalis a general term for anything worn under armor- even if unpadded- or a garment specifically for additional protection and comfort? I thought it was the latter- however if it can be considered that a simple leather tunic with pteruges is a subarmalis, then certainly I can see that what the figure is wearing can be considered possibly a subarmalis. The thing then is that if it's just a simple garment- I see no reason to believe it was only ever worn with armor. You and I would be using the same 'evidence' for different hypotheses- I say that it doesn't look at all like he's wearing any armor, therefore it seems that a subarmalis wasn't necessarily always worn with armor; you're saying that it was therefore he must be wearing armor that we just can't see- correct?

I really don't see why the simplest explanation is so hard to believe- that he's just not wearing any armor

I agree it's one possibility. But I think it's equally possible it's chain mail because chain mail is form-fitting, which would account for his torso not being so bulky as his two friends. And the double-shoulder type was not omnipresent, as you said.

Okay, well I didn't actually say that, what I said was that if it is mail, it can't be the usually-seen shoulder-doubled type. I actually have no idea just how prevalent the type was or whether plain shirts were just as common. If the latter is true, then certainly that addresses the lack of obvious shoulder 'bulges'. However that still leaves the lack of anything at the neck and truly the complete lack of any suggestion of armor.

It's my understanding that all of them are armored differently

Actually, the only two whose armor can be seen are musculata types.

Wait a second- the biggest piece of 'evidence' your argument relies on is that ALL the figures are armored- but it's really only two of them?

One reason, however, that I find the missing of some detail by the sculptor hard to accept though, is the fact that there is so much detail- if it were a crude tombstone, I could see it, but this one has quite striking detail.

Maybe this example will shatter your faith in the artist's abilities to capture everything :

See how the artist here tries but fails to create an illusion of 3-dimensions ? When you look at the chariot, it kills the illusion. Clearly, some effects were beyond the artists' skills.

:lol: When did I say I had faith that the artist had the ability to catch everything? All I said was that given the detail he does include, it doesn't make much sense to ignore the clear lack of one rather important detail- which seems to contradict your hypothesis- by simply saying he just probably left it out. And besides, the fact that he went to great lengths to make the chariot and horses scene look three-dimensional suggests he was being very painstaking in creating the sculpture. If he'd just leave out things on a whim, why go to all the trouble of trying to make the horses look 3-D?

Jaime, I'm not sure just why, but it seems you have the impression that I'm trying to prove the opposite idea that you are- that's not the case at all. All I've been doing is pointing out the problems that I see with the arguments you've been making for the presence of unseen armor. I've never directly said 'he's not wearing any, and here's why'. I can't say that because I freely admit that I can't demonstrate it- I have no specific knowledge of what the sculptor intended that we see. All I can say is that purely from looking at the sculpture, the man just doesn't look like he's wearing any armor at all. His form is clearly different than that of the two armored men. The circumstantial 'evidence' just isn't compelling because there are other explanations for all of it. Given the amount of resoration and the distinct lack of any clear evidence, I simply see no way it can be suggested that he might be wearing mail or something as anything more than a very remote possibility- a sort of 'anything's possible' kind of thing.

Now I do hope that you're not starting to think of me as an anatgonist- I really don't mean or want to be This has been a very interesting argument I think.

Matt

[Matt Lukes]

What interests me about this figure is the way his tunic (for want of a better word) is pulled in towards his neck, allowing the folds of the tunic to carry on up to his shoulders. I can see no hint of brooches close to the neck which might have made this possible. So how does the garment hang the way it does rather than simply flopping down to hang over the shoulders?

I do understand what you mean Crispvs, but the lack of any bunching at the shoulders suggests they are actually as narrow as we see them and I'd fully expect a garment with a large torso and narrow shoulders to hang this way.

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Matt,

Let me correct something I said earlier : The possibility that he's wearing nothing underneath can be safely ruled out because of the pteruges, IMO. They're attached to something.

Okay now the issue here may be semanitc

Yes, I think you're right.

however if it can be considered that a simple leather tunic with pteruges is a subarmalis, then certainly I can see that what the figure is wearing can be considered possibly a subarmalis

Yes, I would consider a subarmalis to be either padded or not. Mine isn't :lol: I just use it for pteruges. The evidence is ambiguous, at least when it comes to the Romans.

you're saying that it was therefore he must be wearing armor that we just can't see- correct?

If we consider the context, yes. If we ignore the context, we still have his pteruges to suggest (IMO) that at the very least, he's wearing a subarmalis.

However that still leaves the lack of anything at the neck and truly the complete lack of any suggestion of armor.

The neck, as we can see, is heavily damaged. So I'd rather not take it into consideration.

Wait a second- the biggest piece of 'evidence' your argument relies on is that ALL the figures are armored- now it's only two of them?

Well, there are only two that are undeniably armored in the foreground. The third has that over-tunic (or whatever it is). And the two others in the background are only visible from the neck and above wearing helmets and holding shields.

Jamie, I'm not sure just why, but it seems you have the impression that I'm trying to prove the opposite idea that you are- that's not the case at all.

No one can prove anything. Sorry, if I sound confrontational. I was just trying to explain my rationale for making assumptions. I get the impression that your philosophy is that it's never a good idea to formulate theories based on limited facts and clues. As long as you say you're theorizing, I don't think it's dangerous because it's just theory and one of many at that.

I think it's fun to speculate, and I try to point out the weaknesses and strengths of each individual theory.

I simply see no way it can be suggested that he could be wearing armor

The only reason I do is because of the context. So, I think it's just slightly more likely than not that he's wearing armor. Otherwise, I would agree.

Now I do hope that you're not starting to think of me as an anatgonist- I really don't mean or want to be

I never got that impression. Communicating over the internet creates misperceptions, in my experience. I think that's why they created emoticons idea:

This has been a very interesting argument I think.

Agreed. 8)

[Tarbicus]

What interests me about this figure is the way his tunic (for want of a better word) is pulled in towards his neck, allowing the folds of the tunic to carry on up to his shoulders. I can see no hint of brooches close to the neck which might have made this possible. So how does the garment hang the way it does rather than simply flopping down to hang over the shoulders?

That's what happens when the neckhole is smaller and tied at the back of the neck. The front ends up looking almost like a cravat. In this case the neckhole might be quite wide, but whatever's underneath the tunic might be reducing the gather of the neck.



I hadn't made the neckhole big enough for the above photo. I'm pretty sure you can arrange the folds in such a way as shown on the relief. I was actually able to fold the tunic in a way that resembled a coat.

[Matt Lukes]

Hi Matt,

Let me correct something I said earlier : The possibility that he's wearing nothing underneath can be safely ruled out because of the pteruges, IMO. They're attached to something.

Oh I agree completely- it does seem quite clear that the pteruges are behind the 'hems' of the arm holes and lower edge of the outer garment.

Okay now the issue here may be semanitc

Yes, I think you're right.

however if it can be considered that a simple leather tunic with pteruges is a subarmalis, then certainly I can see that what the figure is wearing can be considered possibly a subarmalis

Yes, I would consider a subarmalis to be either padded or not. Mine isn't :lol: I just use it for pteruges. The evidence is ambiguous, at least when it comes to the Romans.

Ah, okay- I had been thinking the term applied to padded garments worn under armor, but it did occur upon looking at some images that those who wear a hamata don't always go for any padding- just a leather tunic.

The only issue I see arising from such a broad definition is how do you tell a subarmalis from any other garment? Do you assume that pteruges ONLY ever appeared on subarmali? (aside- how do you pluralize words ending in 'is' anyway?). If so, how would you go about proving that hypothesis? The debate surrounding this sculpture can be taken as evidence to the contrary, depending on your point-of-view...

you're saying that it was therefore he must be wearing armor that we just can't see- correct?

If we consider the context, yes. If we ignore the context, we still have his pteruges to suggest (IMO) that at the very least, he's wearing a subarmalis.

Once again, I'll certainly agree that he is wearing two garments- if the postulate that only subarmali had pteruges is correct.

However that still leaves the lack of anything at the neck and truly the complete lack of any suggestion of armor.

The neck, as we can see, is heavily damaged. So I'd rather not take it into consideration.

Yeah, it's unfortunate that the 'restoration' is so extensive- does anyone know for sure where it extends to? Does it really go as far as the neckline of the garment?

Wait a second- the biggest piece of 'evidence' your argument relies on is that ALL the figures are armored- now it's only two of them?

Well, there are only two that are undeniably armored in the foreground. The third has that over-tunic (or whatever it is). And the two others in the background are only visible from the neck and above wearing helmets and holding shields.

Agreed- but then that kind of invalidates the argument that since all the others are wearing armor, the fellow who doesn't appear to be must have it under the garment, yes? It seems to me that it's just as likely that the other two are dressed like the third guy- without any way to demonstrate things either way I mean. I suppose from purely a statistical point-of-view you could say there's a 2 in 5 chance they're all actually armored, but a 1 in 5 chance one or more isn't :wink: I've always hated statistics :lol:

Jamie, I'm not sure just why, but it seems you have the impression that I'm trying to prove the opposite idea that you are- that's not the case at all.

No one can prove anything. Sorry, if I sound confrontational. I was just trying to explain my rationale for making assumptions. I get the impression that your philosophy is that it's never a good idea to formulate theories based on limited facts and clues. As long as you say you're theorizing, I don't think it's dangerous because it's just theory and one of many at that.

I think it's fun to speculate, and I try to point out the weaknesses and strengths of each individual theory.

Oh, you didn't come off as confrontational- I just wanted to make sure you didn't see ME as that way :lol: It's very easy, when all one has is writing and the odd little face, to gauge the tone of a conversation, especially when it is definitely an argument with clear sides. That being the case, I personally find it important to make sure that it's clear things are meant as a discussion, an evaluation of ideas, etc.

And no, I don't have any issues with formulating theories based on limited information- often one HAS to, yes? I'm trained as a scientist so I'm very critical of such arguments in an effort to understand them as well as spot flaws that may invalidate the idea (or recognize good ideas that support it well). Assumptions and tiny clues are just fine for formulating hypotheses, but at least by some definitions, an hypothesis must be testable- in order to validate the idea and demonstrate that the assumptions are accurate. Unfortunately, it's really hard to test hypotheses like this- we can't just head to a lab and try it out :lol: The only 'tests' I can think of immediately is to evaluate further sculptures, etc. bearing the hypothesis in mind, then asking do they fit? If the hypothesis is that pteruges are always associated with a subarmalis, I'd look at all representations of pteruges- do any appear in the absence of armor? Well the problem with this one is of course that this particular relief is the possible contrary evidence depending on how you see it. Given that we have such a limited information base, I would accept that a single contrary example of something, provided that it's not clearly opposite, doesn't necessarily invalidate an hypothesis. If it's the case that every other depiction of pteruges also has armor such that the pteruges are likely part of a subarmalis, I wouldn't say the questionable figure in the Louvre Praetorian relief disproves it.

In truth, because our evidence base is so unbelievably tiny compared to the original population of a given thing, the best we can say in most cases is that something 'could be' or 'often was'; things like 'always' and 'never' are simply unsupportable with what we have. We can say 'such and such' has never been seen to be other than 'whatever', but that's all. For all we know, something is skewing our evidence, or there's other material yet to be found, etc.

I simply see no way it can be suggested that he could be wearing armor

The only reason I do is because of the context. So, I think it's just slightly more likely than not that he's wearing armor. Otherwise, I would agree.

Well if it were a case of 5 to 1 armored to unarmored, I would certainly have a lot of confusion at his unarmored appearance and accept more the idea that perhaps it's just the sculpture- but even then I'd have trouble, given the problems with the sculpture- using this as evidence that garments were worn over armor. That's the real issue, right? That this sculpture shows this was the case- but that's a second level hypothesis based on a unclear first one- more and more unlikely as I wrote previously.

Now I do hope that you're not starting to think of me as an anatgonist- I really don't mean or want to be

I never got that impression. Communicating over the internet creates misperceptions, in my experience. I think that's why they created emoticons idea:

Okay, I've been replying here in order, so I just repeated this above :lol: Good to know we're on the same page! I'm more used to other fora where people can be a tad childish when people don't agree with them- so I do try to make sure this doesn't happen whenever I can. It's hard enough to disagree with someone or offer criticism in person, that in writing it's doubly-hard (although the emoticons do help :wink: ) I usually go back and re-write things a couple of times just to be sure words I've chosen won't be misunderstood as harsh or confrontational- I don't mean to say I took yours that way Jaime- I try to take things as I, myself, would mean them until shown otherwise.


Matt

[Crispvs]

Thanks Tarbicus,

That is quite a helpful reconstruction. The idea of a bunched or pinned neck certainly seems to explain the bunching around the neck and the folds leading down the chest. I think also that the over-tunic in the picture is quite narrow compared to many Roman garments and as Matt suggested, there is the possibility that the garment may be narrower at the top than the bottom, although I think that that would be unusual in the context of Roman clothing. Interestingly, the crescent folds on the skirt of the the tunic are clearly created by pulling the tunic up over the belt in several places, but as this garment is much shorter than a tunica would be expected to be, the crescents can be produced without the upper body becoming as bulky as we see here on the Arch of Titus:


Crispvs

[Theodosius the Great]

I suppose from purely a statistical point-of-view you could say there's a 2 in 5 chance they're all actually armored, but a 1 in 5 chance one or more isn't

You know, I had a similar thought after I logged out. But then I remembered that this figure with the over-tunic is unique in sculpture. So, in a bigger context, one could say it's less likely than 2-5 that the two men in the background are dressed like the soldier in question. :roll: :lol: On the other hand, maybe the whole thing is one big unique piece of work.

Do you assume that pteruges ONLY ever appeared on subarmali?

The evidence is so ambiguous. Either they were, or they were attached directly to the armor. Or maybe even both. I don't see another possibility. Graham Sumner talks about it in "Roman Military Clothing (2)" and even drew one based on later medieval versions.

But, to answer your question, yes, I do assume that (most of the time).

Yeah, it's unfortunate that the 'restoration' is so extensive- does anyone know for sure where it extends to? Does it really go as far as the neckline of the garment?

Well, if I did take the neck into consideration, I would say it looks like there's nothing underneath. However, that may not necessarily mean that there isn't, depending on the shape of the subarmalis. For example, my subarmalis is basically a vest - so it has a V-shaped neck line which would not be visible by looking at my neck. Just a possibility.

And just because it's a restoration, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's 100% guess work on the part of the restoration team. They may have known enough to know, for example, that the left hand figure wore a musculata. Although, Travis believes the finished job looks a bit bizarre when compared to other sculptures.

Oh, you didn't come off as confrontational- I just wanted to make sure you didn't see ME as that way

Ok, I'm glad

It's very easy, when all one has is writing and the odd little face, to gauge the tone of a conversation

Yeah, sometimes I think I "hear" overtones that aren't really there (not with you though :wink: )

Unfortunately, it's really hard to test hypotheses like this- we can't just head to a lab and try it out The only 'tests' I can think of immediately is to evaluate further sculptures, etc. bearing the hypothesis in mind, then asking do they fit?

Perhaps, experimental archeology is another method to test ? Chain mail is the most form-fitting armor there is. I think I'll wear a tunic over my new chain mail and see if I'm noticeably armored. Not that it will prove anything, but I'm curious.

It looks like Tarbicus is already ahead of me.