Lupus help

[Caius Fabius]

pointed

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

And that from the left? are'nt similar?

[Caius Fabius]

no, these are rounded, all the way
like this....
[url:3tp20dgd]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,43/Itemid,94/[/url]

Look I don't care what you want to wear, you can wear wolf, caribou, whatever. It doesn't matter to me. If someone wants to get started and have a historically accurate and provable headdress for an aquilifer, they will give the eagle bearer a wreath. A signifer will have a bearskin, unless he is in the Praetorian Guard. It will have a muzzle attached if he is in the Legion, and it will have the muzzle removed, like in the link above, if he is in the auxiliaries.

You can imagine whatever beasts you wish, dolphins, wolves, boars, eagles, but there is a difference between an impression founded with historical facts and making something that is not provable, but looks good and should have been used. That is something other groups might allow, and I am all in favor of letting people do what they want, as long as they don't try and tell people they have based their recreation upon historical facts.

I hope that we try and set a higher standard here, with references to actual artifacts and not Hollywood photos or wishful thoughts. It is all very well whatever you wear, but it is not all very well to advise someone that something is 'correct' just because some modern unit does it, or some modern person thinks it makes sense.

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

It's your opinion...It's so respectable as those who think that they are other animals.

I think evidence is not conclusive.

What wears Pintaius? A kind of archaeopterix? :wink:

[Tarbicus]

I can't see a single skin on the colums of Marcus Aurelius or Trajan that doesn't look like a big cat or bear. Not a single one looks like a wolf, nor any standard bearer skins in the Imagebase.

Brown bears
http://www.alaska-bear-pictures.com/Coa ... /abp14.jpg

Wolf
[url:20kgvw9y]http://gfx.download-by.net/screen/48/48113-7art-angry-wolves-screensaver.jpg[/url]

[Peroni]

I believe that the wolf skin thing all started off in reenactment thanks to the ESG. Other groups seemed to have copied this.

Pintaius appears to be wearing (In my view) a lion skin. The detail on his head shows not two eyes, but two widely spaced nostrils and the cleft lip of a big cat. Huge claws too.

[Tib. Gabinius]

Now i got the problem, you Charles have with the wolf.
First, i compare with all the authors and colleague who tell us about animal skins of wolf and bear. In secondary literatur you will find it at Junkelmann, Domascewski and so on.
But i understand what you want to say. Take a look at "Aufsätze zur römischen Heeresgeschichte" article "Die Fahnen im römischen Heer" at page 7 you ll see a drawing of a cornicen out of the trajans column, whose animal has your pointed ears, like the signifer on page 43.


But thats quite uninteresting.
You just argumenting "its a proved fact cause all pictures show it with round" (which seems to be not the fact, indeed i never controlled it myself). But just illustrations and their interpretation isnt a fact to get a "truth".
You need the primary sources, at least two of em, to say what is "truth" or what not, and even then theres a doubt on it till all three parts come together (written sources, findings, and ikonographic).
In this case, we ve Polybios, who describe us: the velites wear the animals skins.
In this tradition the signiferi and cornicen wear their skinds, why should they avoid it? Thats a proved doubt on the thesis of "no wolfs", even if it dosnt make wolfs a fact.

Then we ll take a look to the ikonographic monuments. Very often, like on Adamklissi and even some on trajans or marc aurels column, the guys are shown bare headed, no helmet, no skin, not even a hat. (Grave stones of the aquliliferi Musius of the XIIIIs, Sertorius of the XIs, signifer in York of the LEG VIIII whose name i just forgot. Coinds, like the late roman of Trier show us vexiliferi without helm or skin, to see in "Trier Kaiserresidenz und Bischofssitz" just to mention some other sources before you ask).
And, to make this a bit more round, the animals kinds arent mentioned, neither at Vegetius, nor at Arrian, nor Ammian or someone else.
Is this an evidence that the -iferi didnt wear a helmet or skin? No it isn' t and cant be, just like the interpretation of the ears form (??) can took to destroy a tradition without reason or second source.
I agree to you, that you cant identify the form of the ears on coins, in fact i never took a single thought on it. But thats the fact for, i guess, the half of the shown animal wearing signiferi. You cant see what animal he wear.

So, get some sources that tell us that, when and why they lost the will to wear wolf.

[Arthes]

There will also be several Lion and large cat skins available when the Colorado based rescue ranch that has been caring for lions and tigers and such goes into bankruptcy, within the next couple of months. They have already announced that they will have to kill all of their animals, since no zoos are wanting to take them, and they are running out of money for food.

Which ranch is that...one of the larger animal rescue organisations may be able to help.....such as IFAW If they know, they may be able to help...I hope so, its wrong to kill these beautiful animals simply for the sake of it.... :evil:
regards
Arthes

[Arthes]

It's ok....I traced it....RockyMountainWildlifeConservationCentre Look at those beautiful cats...
I emailed the American branch of IFAW...it doesn't cost anything and they may have some ideas....

[Tarbicus]

So, get some sources that tell us that, when and why they lost the will to wear wolf.

When the velites disappeared from the army is one argument.

If velites are to be used as examples of animal skins to wear, and then were worn by signifers and cornicens in some kind of tradition, how come the latter don't wear badger skins, and did the velites wear lion skins as clearly depicted on TC?

The velites' animal skins were a means to identify them clearly, and some believe they looked quite individual so that they could easily be later identified if they showed great courage. By Caesar's time the velites have disappeared, their function being replaced by the auxilia who with little doubt could be also easily be identified from a distance. Therefore, the function of the animal skins for ordinary soldiers had disappeared, whereas the standard bearers and cornicens, etc, still needed to be identified clearly in battle. It is thoroughly obvoius to my eyes that neither of the major columns show wolf skins being worn, and I find it incredible to believe, given their significance to the Romans, that they would not be clearly identifiable and represented.

Is the cornicen with pointy ears on Spiral 16of TC? If so, I fail to see how that can be definitely called a wolf.

[Tib. Gabinius]

I cant tell you from which par these both drawings in his book are, cause in times when this book was written they hadnt parted the coulmn like today, so i didnt copied the literatur and sources list for my work. Next time i will need it i will take a look for it.

Of course the velites were died out long time before the time we re talkin about.
But the traditions of republican army wasnt that fully destroyed that sentence of you seems to say. Also the eagle was set instead of the animal standarts of republican period by the time of Marius, we still have animal signas and stafftops in form of animals in foundings till imperial time.

That a veles was dressed individual is out of discussing, cause it was a man who had to buy his equipment himself, and he belonged to the "less having" classes. Its logical (NOT evidenced) that he would talk what he get, also what wild and "brave" animals belong to.

So, why should this tradition, still living in the sign givers, should be changed that way, that one of the possible animals wasnt allowed anymore to wear? That was the question to the why?

Back to ikonographic only: there are some arguments, like i mentioned, to doubt it. Out of personal view, some see "pointed ears", what about the guys who made that "pictures", did they know they had to look for, already they made a mass of possible mistakes in equipment details,
why it didnt found itself in written sources, whats with the quite mass of non identifable animals, is it stilizised? And so on.

So, the answer to the disuccsion of wolf allowed or not: we cant say it clearly. There is an argument, the ears, for the fighters for, and there are also arguments for the fighting against.

Like so often, it cant be told us clearly.

@Arthes, i wish the animals good luck and that another organisation will take em.

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Tobias Gabrys have said what i want to say, but better and more argumented.

The arguments we have are not conclusive and very subjective.

[Tarbicus]

The arguments we have are not conclusive and very subjective.

Subjective? There is no evidence presented so far for wolf skins being worn, and you cannot be more objective than that. Even the representational evidence says so, unless of course curved became pointy in the last 24 hours :wink:

Velites are said to wear badger skins, so where are they being worn by modern re-enactor cornicens and signifers? Did velites wear lion skins? If standard bearers do on Trajan's Column (which they do), the logical argument is that velites also did. Did the velites wear bear skins? I haven't seen anyone propose that yet, but again the logic follows through that they would given their use by standard bearers and cornicens.

Lions and bears are big animals, and given that the signifer's job was to protect the standard it makes more sense than to wear a smaller animal like a wolf or badger. The velites' strength lay in their agility and loose formation, and wearing the bear or lion makes no sense at all. Clearly there is a difference in the choice of animal for the different roles. Why would the signifers break tradition and wear the skins of lesser class soldiers whose role on the battle was thoroughly different? Why would they even wish for the possibility of being identified as a veles?

The differing animals for different classes of soldier make sense to me, and may just as well have created a tradition in itself.

[Tib. Gabinius]

The arguments we have are not conclusive and very subjective.

Subjective? There is no evidence presented so far for wolf skins being worn, and you cannot be more objective than that. Even the representational evidence says so, unless of course curved became pointy in the last 24 hours :wink:

Yap, that is what i alo would like to say: subjetive. The animals, seen in iconographic details are interpretated as bears. Anywhere theres written "bear", nor did all watchers agree to the interpretation, so it IS subjective. And if this still isnt enough, take a look to a dictionary under "subjective", there somewhat about personal meaning, view and taste is told to you.

Velites are said to wear badger skins, so where are they being worn by modern re-enactor cornicens and signifers? Did velites wear lion skins? If standard bearers do on Trajan's Column (which they do), the logical argument is that velites also did. Did the velites wear bear skins?

That is what we told in germany a "Kehrschluß" and used every time logical dosnt wanted to be accepted.

A tradition mostly, not every time, has reasons to let somewhat of itself die out, IF (!) this happens.
And still now, we dont have an evidence THAT the wearing of wolf skins died out or why it should. Otherwise we also havent from all sides accepted evidence (cause already just iconographic and so ready for an interpretation) an evidence FOR wearing a wolf.

What at all velites wear or dont, we also cant say, cause Polybios isnt that detailed and exactly.
So we just know, what we know, and that why i told, in agreeing to the problems of identifycation i didnt noticed before, that we cant say: only or also.

I haven't seen anyone propose that yet, but again the logic follows through that they would given their use by standard bearers and cornicens.

If you accept that, i agree to that, you also have to accept the other side and the serious doubt to both theories....

Lions and bears are big animals, and given that the signifer's job was to protect the standard it makes more sense than to wear a smaller animal like a wolf or badger. The velites' strength lay in their agility and loose formation, and wearing the bear or lion makes no sense at all. Clearly there is a difference in the choice of animal for the different roles. Why would the signifers break tradition and wear the skins of lesser class soldiers whose role on the battle was thoroughly different? Why would they even wish for the possibility of being identified as a veles?

What the heck do you try now? To fill in ancient life with modern thinking like in our discussion about tunic lenght again?
We dont know, what characteristic of the animals brought them to wear their skins. Was it really their bodyindex? Their bravery? The colour? Or something less spectacular? The most popular animal in circus, or most "have in the woods in front"? Or the most easiest to catch?
If the length would playing a role, why did the armies choose the eagle? Very unspectacular, arent they? The bull or the bear would be much greater.
And by the wyy, the bull would be bigger than the bear also, why dont they wear them? I hope you understand.
And did the velites wear animal skins at all? Wear just in battle or never in battle? Often enough they had to fight also in close fight, dont they could need the "spirit"?
So, much to unknown to get a discussion like this, stay at the facts.

Fact is: we just have Polybios as source forwearing "animal skins" before and we do have many reliefs, coins and so on from early empire till late empire, which show often bears ( i ll agree to that) often enough discussed animals and also really often unidentifable animals or nothing at the head.
That are the facts. Neither the pros nor the contras can change anything at this, also i really would like to do, cause i believe to all the scientist and authors, who say something else since the time long before Hollywood or the Ermines were developed (just to get this rumor out of the world).

[Caius Fabius]

I am not accepting that the traditions of the 1960's and 1970's are correct, and should be copied, or even continued. I know it was traditional for movies and reenactors to use a wolf pelt when they did their portrayals, and now modern groups want to do the same. It is not proved historically.

Just because veletes wore the wolf-skin is no reason to ASSUME that the -ifers did 150 years-300 years- 450 years later. Until you find sculptural evidence then you should go with what is provable to the time period you are re-enacting. You don't mix Republican Shields, Mainz Gladii, and Ridge Helmets just because they were mentioned by Vegetius?

I understand that it is expensive to get a bearskin, when you already have a wolf-pelt. Great, I am not saying you should change, if you have made such an investment. Maybe some day in the future, you can change, if you want to and have the funding. The problem is, when you advise a newcomer to get what you have, just because you have it. A newcomer wanting to invest his or her money in a historical headdress for an -ifer, should not buy a wolf-skin. The eagle-bearer is bare-headed or wearing a wreath in all of the sculpture I have looked up since this discussion started. Bare headed, not bear headed. The other -ifers wear a bear head or large feline head in every sculpture that I have seen, if they are wearing a headdress. Some funerary stele show the -ifer bare-headed, but also show a standard. Some just mention his rank in the inscription.

This might be a good subject for a thesis, if someone wants to spend hours and hours doing the research, but until someone can find actual visual evidence, a person just starting or creating a new an -ifer impression should not use Hollywood, the ESG, or other reenactment groups as their historical model, unless they are reenacting 1970's Roman reenactors.

And we already know that Vegetius confuses so many thing in his writing, mixing and adding and subtracting with the intent of his own stated agenda. Most historians regard Vegetius as a less than reliable, primary source. It is like having Condelisa Rice write a Book about the History of the American Army and how the Modern U.S. Army should return to the old values, using an encyclopedia from the 1950's and a dozen randoms diaries for her source material. Sure, she is a government official, and sure, she may get bits and pieces right, but there is great doubt that it would be historical or accurate. However, if in 2000 years, this was the only work on the subject to survive, historians would use it!!!!!