Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news

[Tib. Gabinius]

Tobias wrote:

What proofes that? That proofes something about modern armies, not about ancient time.

It proves it was possible.

To make corps out of leather, or helmets?
Like the aztecs showed us many other things were also possible, and i dont think someone will tell us, that romans used feather-armour.
So this argument isnt usable. Just cause in other times or cultures it was done, it isnt a must for another time and / or period.
We could discuss also the logical problems, but still right now, we talking about evidences, and there arent any for lorica seg. of leather, also the possibility is there, that some parts werent identified and selled or brought without any word, foto and information away.

If you mean there were doubt about using the slings

No, the doubt was about throwing stones.

Ah, ok, now i see.
The doubts were logical, caused by good arguments and foundings.
But other foundings in context of artillery showed something else and ended the discussing also earlier... Normal way of science, like it was in the believe of leather armoured army to metal prefered.

So you speculate that a collector took parts of a segmentata? Or do you mean he took something whole?

No, I was suggesting that something might have been found years ago then possibly misinterpreted, lost or forgotten. Not every archaeologist is an expert on Roman military finds or even interested in the Roman military. I think Mike Bishop himself has even found pieces of armour amongst old finds collections.

An old joke under arch. is: if its a metall shet and have a hole its a fitting plate... As i said, theres a chance for your theorie, but its quite very small, and still that, the facts say something else.

and there arent sources for leather seg

Well that depends on your point of view and how you interpret the sculptural evidence, which is what we are debating.

Not really. A fact is: you cant proof material out of iconographic. But epigraphic and founds will help, and they tell us something else.

As I said before the Roman artist can appear to depict things very accurately but at other times it is hard for us today to understand what is being shown, but can we always say the Roman artist was wrong? In Gill Grisom terms the Roman artist was an eye witness at the Crime scene wheras we are 2000 years away looking at pieces of the evidence with non Roman eyes.

If we take a look at different works of roman artists we will always see many differences between them, also if they are done in the same time.
Thats quite normal, every artist had his way to do and prefer a way to style something. And thats one of the many problems we had through the time, we believed these items as they were photographs.
Its not a question of wrong or right, its a question of style.
You can read about it in the good articel about interpretation of roman iconography at the examples of swords on 2nd century monuments in "Roman military equipment: the sources of evidence".