pretorian and subarmalis

[Tarbicus]

Thanks Rob, makes sense.

[Theodosius the Great]

The two Praetorians that Aurelianus highlights may not be cavalrymen afterall. If their shields were flat then they must be cavalrymen (or auxiliaries). But if you look at the guy on the left, his shield looks as if it's cylindrically curved like a legionary scutum. See how his left shoulder leans into a groove ? So, now I'm inclined to think they can't be cavalrymen.

Any thoughts ?

~ Theo

[marcii ulpi messala]

Well, I am useful to do another consultation. This relief this one extracted of Constantino arch, but it he is undoubted that this relief does not belong to the above mentioned epoch. Would someone be able date this relief taken advantage in Constantino arch, for his your armament?

[Alexandr K]

Hi,
it's one of the reliefs of Marcus Aurelius. This one showing the adlocutio.

See this page for the other reliefs.

Greetings
Alexandr

[marcii ulpi messala]

Well, but it is certainly strange that in the "adlocutio", the emperor presents neither the beard nor Marco Aurelio's typical hairdo, looks like another royal personage or emperor not?

[marcii ulpi messala]

Estimated Magnus, this one is clear that Connoly represents even centurion. Since part of the officialdom carries subarmalis with pteruges, the common legionaries that it he represents, they lack of subarmalis with pteruges.

[Dan Diffendale]

Well, but it is certainly strange that in the "adlocutio", the emperor presents neither the beard nor Marco Aurelio's typical hairdo, looks like another royal personage or emperor not?

The heads of the Emperor in the panels incorporated into the Arch of Constantine were recarved to present the likeness of Constantine.

[Magnus]

Estimated Magnus, this one is clear that Connoly represents even centurion. Since part of the officialdom carries subarmalis with pteruges, the common legionaries that it he represents, they lack of subarmalis with pteruges.

It's a bad picture of the cover, but if you check out the regular legionary behind the centurion, you can see he too has pteryges. Actually, they all do. I don't have this book anymore, maybe if someone has it here they can leaf through it quick and see if there are other pictures inside depicting them as such.

[Tarbicus]

The two Praetorians that Aurelianus highlights may not be cavalrymen afterall. If their shields were flat then they must be cavalrymen (or auxiliaries). But if you look at the guy on the left, his shield looks as if it's cylindrically curved like a legionary scutum. See how his left shoulder leans into a groove ? So, now I'm inclined to think they can't be cavalrymen.

Any thoughts ?

It might be an attempt to show depth and perspective, but the physical limitations of the relief's actual depth makes it impossible to go further into the stone than it does. Half and half, so to speak. The guy on the right's shield doesn't show such a thing, but his shield is more square to the viewer so wouldn't need it. They both certainly look dished, but that's not a major surprise.

[Tarbicus]

Bear in mind that there's absolutely no cross-bracing on these shields, so you can deduce from that what you want. For me only, it reinforces my belief that we shouldn't be looking to the great monuments for any clues to detail, etc, apart from probably the more provincial ones (Adamklissi, simply because artistically it feels more 'honest' and less contrived - more a documentary than a blockbuster).

[Theodosius the Great]

The two Praetorians that Aurelianus highlights may not be cavalrymen afterall. If their shields were flat then they must be cavalrymen (or auxiliaries). But if you look at the guy on the left, his shield looks as if it's cylindrically curved like a legionary scutum. See how his left shoulder leans into a groove ? So, now I'm inclined to think they can't be cavalrymen.

Any thoughts ?

It might be an attempt to show depth and perspective, but the physical limitations of the relief's actual depth makes it impossible to go further into the stone than it does. Half and half, so to speak. The guy on the right's shield doesn't show such a thing, but his shield is more square to the viewer so wouldn't need it. They both certainly look dished, but that's not a major surprise.

So, the artist may have wanted to squeeze in the shield by altering the perspective. That's a good possibility. If true, the same effort isn't repeated on this panel from the same era :



The artist apparently had no qualms about cutting out the Praetorian's shield (far right). But it could be a different artist.

I agree about putting too much, if any, faith in artists' reconstructions. On the other hand, sometimes art is all you have to go on due to lack of any archeological evidence.

~ Theo

[Theodosius the Great]

It's a bad picture of the cover, ...I don't have this book anymore, maybe if someone has it here they can leaf through it quick and see if there are other pictures inside depicting them as such.

I do.

Here are a couple of shots :

Battling Dacians

Closeup


~Theo

[Magnus]

Thanks Theo!

Wierd, on the grunts they only have pteryges around the arm...though the centurion has both.