segmentata

[Tarbicus]

Why do modern artists stick horns on the helmets of vikings even though many of them know they were never worn historically?

Because modern artists weren't around at the time of the Vikings, whereas Roman sculptors were around at the time of the Roman army.

I think using the Column is like using the film 'The Few' as proof that all RAF pilots were very posh and at the very least middle class, which in itself has led to a mistaken and enduring stereotype.

But, I think the view that segs were in little use, and a legionary would rather wear hamata, discounts too much of the finds in context and the stereotypical representation in public art of legionaries.

[Dan Howard]

"Segs were in little use?" When did I ever say that? I have no problem with the majority of common soldiers wearing segs during the period in question.

[Dan Howard]

Because modern artists weren't around at the time of the Vikings, whereas Roman sculptors were around at the time of the Roman army.

That is only valid for those artists who don't know that viking helms had no horns.

How about another example: the Bayeux Tapestry. Why are those people in authority depicted wielding clubs in battle even though the needlework was done by contemporaries and none of the combatants actually wielded clubs in this battle?

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

there you are very very wrong, cuz they did!.... the peasant part of the army on the English, as wel as on the Norman side used clubs, also people in authority did use weapons like clubs called maces and flanges, as wel as spiked clubs...

so your theory that no person of authority would ever have wielded such a weapon is absolutely ridiculous!

M.VIB.M.

[Goffredo]

Hi Dan

Artistic representations are to be taken with a grain or two of salt. We all know this. I feel that in the case of the Trajan and Marcus columns the segmentata were used to represent legionaries because the typical viewer expected legionaries to look that way. The issue of "looks" is a delicate and in principle could sway to both extremes: extreme realism or extreme stylized look. I personally believe the extremes may be found only in modern western art. In all cases artists of every era and every culture make more or less consciously a choice. They can be passive pawns of their culture or e active creators of a new artisitic fashion. I do believe it is never obvious and what a person believes happened in one case shouldn't be rigid in applying his pet model to other eras.

As you say the Bayeux tapestry shows anacronistic clubs! I also think of nude hoplites in much greek work. We are all aware of hellenistic look in much roman stuff as if it was standard to make roman heroes look somehat greekish. I do feel the columns of Trajan and Marcus are another instance. Where do these fall? Realism vs stylized representation? The wisest thing to say is that it is somewhere in the middle. As I said before only today do we see in some cases the extremes.


How about opening a thread on Trajan's column with explicit reference to what military archelogy says? Maybe the many roman army experts in this forum should be brave enough to say something on this and set the art critics on the right path. That is if they are already influenced by what the columns show.

[mcbishop]

Maybe the many roman army experts in this forum should be brave enough to say something on this and set the art critics on the right path.

Perhaps they have learned through bitter experience that they are usually wasting their time urging caution where the Column is concerned ;-)

Mike Bishop

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Laudes!!

:lol:

M.VIB.M.

[Tarbicus]

Sorry Dan, I got the wrong end of the stick. But I still don't think it reasonable to compare contemporary artists to non-contemporary ones. Ask an everyday British illustrator to depict a British soldier of only twenty years ago and they will get it wrong without reference materials and research.

I personally think the Columns are fairly unreliable as they're outright propaganda and I question the knowledge of the sculptors, but that doesn't mean they should be written off completely and utterly. I'm sure they still have something useful to say, and that's in the general message that legionaries mostly wore segs, and auxilia mostly wore hamata. But the distinction is black and white as the Columns are not ancient Osprey books to inform the citizenry of what the soldiers wore, but propaganda stories to reinforce the greatness of the Emperors and Rome, and the crucial necessity was that the average person in Rome could identify who did what. This clearly suggests that it was known that legionaries predominantly wore segs.

I am still skeptical that seg repairs in the field were as difficult as many think, and am certain that replacement parts would be available and to hand. Sure, not as easy as hamata, but not a good reason to say hamata was preferred (and I'm not directing this at you, Dan, but it is a regular reason why it is believed hamata would be the preferred choice). Specialists find things easy, and the army was full of specialists as well as being logistically well organised. There is also an assumption that the average soldier only had one set of armour, and although there is no evidence for spares being possessed, there is a reference in the letter of a centurion that he had a spare shield, which he asks his wife to bring to him. For all we know, the men may have had more than one type of body armour for different purposes, as well as more than one type of shield?

[lup_alb]

Well... About Trajan's column. As you know there were 2 dacian-roman wars and after the first war is said thet Trajan ordered the modification of the roman equipment to withstand the deadly blows of the dacian falx and to form specialized units to deal with the falxmen. A modern study about the efect of a falx shows a falx penetrating more than 3 inches trough a 1.2 mm sheet of mild steel. I can confirm that since we have made some replicas of sicas and falxes and even non sharpened, and during a stage fight (so the blows were not full force) a friend of mine cut trough the 5 mm iron rivets of a shield. So it is posible that the legionaries are wearing segmetata to show that they were well prepared to confront the dacian falxmen and their horiffic weapon.

[Matthew]

How about another example: the Bayeux Tapestry. Why are those people in authority depicted wielding clubs in battle even though the needlework was done by contemporaries and none of the combatants actually wielded clubs in this battle?

I think that was best explained as being Rods signifying Authority, rather than weapons, in the case of William and his brother Odo. The Roman de Rose, I have heard, also comments on the Mace / Rod held by Odo, but I have yet to read the passage myself.
In the case of the unarmoured foot wielding clubs later on in the tapestry, I imagine that was a fair comment.
There is also a Club type object being hurled by the Saxons at one point in conjunction with a Spear and a Man in the ranks holding what appears to be a Throwing Axe. The whole scene at that point is very varied in its depiction of warfare, showing both couched and over arm Spears on the part of the Normans.

Matthew James Stanham

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Thanx for that comment!

Say Lup, I kind of like your idea about the legionaries being especially prepared for the dacian campaign by mostly wearing segmentata........

it strikes me as not too far fetched indeed!! especially if the column indeed was about winning the second war!

however it is no guarantee that the segmentata never was or became uniform... in a pluriform military system.

M.VIB.M.

[Dan Howard]

I'm in the camp who thinks that legionaires are depicted in segmentata because that is what is expected of legionaires. Same with horned vikings. Regarding the Bayeux Tapestry, the leaders are depcited with clubs because it denotes them as authority figures. They certainly didn''t wield them in battle. When someone shows me a depiction of an officer or centurio (or anyone who could have afforded hamata) in segmentata, then I will gladly modify my stance.

[Matthew]

Hang on Dan, why did you say this, then:

How about another example: the Bayeux Tapestry. Why are those people in authority depicted wielding clubs in battle even though the needlework was done by contemporaries and none of the combatants actually wielded clubs in this battle?

Am I reading you wrong somewhere along the line?

Matthew James Stanham

[Tarbicus]

When someone shows me a depiction of an officer or centurio (or anyone who could have afforded hamata) in segmentata, then I will gladly modify my stance.

I don't think it'll ever be found, but that means absolutely nothing when it comes to practicality of armour. Centurions aren't depicted wearing musculata as far as we can tell, but higher ranking officers (socially as well as militarily) are usually depicted wearing more archaic and Hellenistic musculata. Something that has often crossed my mind is that the muscled cuirass and parazonium is to make that class of soldier distinctive from the men (hamata and segmentata are surely better armour than musculata?) showing a long and ancient tradition of the man and his family, and I sometimes wonder if the reason for centurions wearing hamata is harkening back to a proud military tradition of the Republican age; wearing a seg would put them in with the lower rankers. I certainly feel that the distinction in armour is not really to do with practicality, but the most important thing of all to a Roman - status and visible prestige in society.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I must say i agree there must have been a definete difference in status by wearing different equipment...

but has it been described somewhere in the sources? was there a rule for it?

these days, a lot of Centurii, auxiliarii, equiti, and archers etcetera wear hamata in re-enactment... but you also see the odd Miles gregarivs walking about in it...... are they all wrong?

or was the Roman legion less uniform as we like to hope... and was the only REAL distinction found in the equipment of the highest officers, namely the Hellenistic muscled cuirass............?

M.VIB.M.