Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column

[Tarbicus]

Jim, I can't see how you can say the helmets on TT are Gallic G. They are so poorly defined that they could be anything from Italic to Gallic with expanded cross bracing.

I didn't say Gallic, I said Italic and Aquincum, but the fact is the forms fit with the archaeological evidence umpteen times more than anything seen on TC. Not to mention the rest of the gear they wear.



http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/c ... tope18.htm

Who is more likely to see a real Roman soldier from a campaign? A city dwelling sculptor in Rome (the city where soldiers seldom went), or a conquered sculptor in Dacia (nation that had shed loads of the beggars roaming the streets and countryside)?

[Peroni]

Alan Wrote..

Is there any evidence 'from the dirt' that suggest one is more or less accurate than the other?

Indeed, what do we have from the archaeological record from the area in terms of lets say lorica segmentata components/fittings or pilum shanks?

As far as I am aware we only have one helmet - the Berzobis Gallic with a retro-fitted cross-bracing. This could have been worn by both legionary or auxiliary soldiers.

[Nerva]

TT was not built by local conquered sculptors. As was the practice everywhere else in the empire, stone constructions of this nature were built by the strong arms of the legionaries. The locals would not have any real skill in building in stone. Indeed, the archaeological evidence confirms this.

Even the auxiliaries would lack the skill, do you find any building tablets left by auxiliary units on Hadrian's wall?

[Peroni]

"Roomberg finds (Published by C. van Driel-Murray)"

I don't know these- could you give some more info?

You have the article! The shield cover article from JRMES.

Even the auxiliaries would lack the skill, do you find any building tablets left by auxiliary units on Hadrian's wall?

Yes! quite a few actually. This one is from our Batavian brothers at Magnis/Carvoran.

RIB 1823, 1824 (inscribed on opposite faces)

RIB 1823
COH I BATAVORVM F(ecit)
“The first Cohort of Batavians have made [this].â€

[drsrob]

Well, there IS a depiction of an auxiliary on TC carrying a curved scutum, and the shield cover from Roomberg is wide enough for a curve-faced shield.

There were also cohors 'scutata'. Whether they used a curved shield is arguable as all shields are in effect 'scuta'. Interestingly IIRC both scutata cohors were from Spain, and were equitata.

Cohors II Hispanorum Cyrenaica scutata equitata
Cohors I Lusitanorum Cyrenaica scutata equitata

Erant, ut supra demonstratum est, legiones Afranii tres, Petreii duae, praeterea scutatae citerioris provinciae et caetratae ulterioris Hispaniae cohortes circiter LXXX equitumque utriusque provinciae circiter V milia.[...]

During the Civil War the auxiliary cohorts recruited from Nearer Spain were still armed with caetrae while the cohorts from Further Spain were equipped with scutae which in these circumstances would surely refer to Celtic shields and not to Roman ones.
Imo therefore the title Scutata in imperial cohorts indicates no other shield than that of ordinary auxiliary cohorts. As we know of no cohortes caetrati from imperial times the term is probably simply a relic.

As far as reliability is concerned:

One thing I noticed on TC is that all auxiliaries are equiped with breeches, short tunics and short mail shirts whether they are infantry or cavalry.
On grave stones however auxiliary infantry is equiped much the same as legionaries. I.e. waist belts with sporran, long tunic, short swords etc. There breeches and short tunics and mail shirts are only found on cavalry.

Now the only auxiliary troops stationed in Rome were the equites singulares Augusti. Imo Italian sculpturers must have considered this barbarian dress and would have assumed that all auxiliaries as non-Romans would have dressed the same.

[lisa]

In Roman 'historical' relief sculpture, the real life details always defer to the story that needs to be told, which makes it difficult to assume that either monument shows equipment as it actually was for any particular unit. Especially with TC, the purpose of which we don't know but ultimately has some propagandistic bent, the different units are shown not only very uniformly, as Tarbicus points out, to make the monument easier to 'read' but the variations between them are likely exaggerated (in this case, so that it's easier to see the number and different types of units participating? Perhaps. It's probably not that simple).

Compare the Column of Marcus Aurelius--different units aren't as carefully shown, crafted, maintained, which could be a symptom of the fact that differences in equipment weren't as carefully enforced in that period OR that it wasn't as important to the message of that column, which seems to highlight the horrors of war more than the efficiency and might of the Roman army as seen on TC.

Compare sarcophogi with battle scenes in second century--barbarians are generally shown without armour and bareheaded, while the battle trophies depicted do show armour, which is interestingly quite similar to what the battling Romans wear. It's hard to say in that case whether the barbarians really went into battle underequipped or if they had armour just like the Romans: where the battle is shown, the differences between the groups are exaggerated, and arms trophies are just part of the picture symbolism, "This means victory," without necessarily depicting actual barbarian equipment.

As has been pointed out, the location, the artists and their experience all make big differences in the details and final product, but I think the purpose of the monuments and the nature of historical relief do too.

My three cents, anyway.

[Tarbicus]

TT was not built by local conquered sculptors. As was the practice everywhere else in the empire, stone constructions of this nature were built by the strong arms of the legionaries. The locals would not have any real skill in building in stone. Indeed, the archaeological evidence confirms this.

Even the auxiliaries would lack the skill, do you find any building tablets left by auxiliary units on Hadrian's wall?

The Dacians had aqueducts. Hardly a primitive people incapable of sculpting what are actually 'not particularly well executed' sculpture. The fact is that the Roman army encouraged local artesans to do work for them and occasionally patronised them, which can even be seen on Roman forts in Britain. The theory that soldiers made the TT is only a theory.

If there was a choice between the TT figures being influenced more by classic Meditteranean art or Dacian figurative art I know which I'd opt for.

As for building in stone, they had some of the best defences going, which the Romans even made a name for - Murus dacicus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murus_dacicus

My three cents, anyway.

More 10 bucks.

[Nerva]

Sorry Tarbicus, your point is?

[Paullus Scipio]

This is a particular pet interest of mine !
About thirty years ago, I studied both in detail (via Cichorius in the British Museum, the casts of the column in the V&A, and the casts in the Museo de civilita Romani in Rome, as well as the column itself - incidently, the casts in the V&A are the best, made before modern pollution badly eroded the column ).For those interested,Cichorius has very good illustrations of all the panels, but is virtually unobtainable as far as I know.
Rossi's "Trajan's column and the Dacian Wars" is pretty much completely useless, Sir Ian Richmond's British School at Rome papers are useful and the best modern study (1988) is Frank Lepper and Sheppard Frere's "Trajan's Column" which reproduces the Cichorius plates (albeit smaller than the original )with fresh commentary and notes.
The tropaeum is hard to 'get at' in English, but there are several Romanian works on the subject.
The tropaeum does in fact portray legionaries in 'segmentata' (e.g.metope XLIV), on the march with straight-sided scuta, (elsewhere, curved sided scuta are shown (e.g. metope XXXI),weighted pila ( as an aside, I doubt the weights were lead as is often supposed - too heavy) ,braccae, gladii worn on the right and Tunics and long pteruges.Legionaries are also depicted on the march with scuta, weighted pila , gladii etc, but no helmet or armour ("undress uniform"?). The tribesmen wielding the "Dacian" falxes are clearly NOT Dacian, but Celtic/Germanic tribesmen complete with 'suebian knot' hairstyles. Some of the legionary shield designs are identical to those seen on the Column(see e.g metope XXVIII - two legionaries in undress standing at ease, with "Praetorian shields identical to those on the Column, pila, gladii on the right, focales/scarves,and paenula cloaks just like the famous London tombstone (illustrated p.44 of Graham Sumner's Roman Military Clothing (1) . Cavalry types clearly have (relatively) small scale armoured breastplates for their horses, and carry flat, curved sided but straight top and bottom shields. Some of the falx wielders have oval shields, and auxiliaries are clearly differentiated from legionaries in similar fashion to the column (mail/scale armour, braccae but no knee length tunics, sword worn on left, flat oval shields etc (e.g metope XXXIV - an auxiliary in action against falx wielding tribesmen (Bastarnae ? ).
Intriguingly, one illustation MAY show a Centurion(metope XXXIII) capturing a falx wielder, as his equipment is apparently better than other legionaries - double short pteruges at shoulder and hem of a knee-length 'squamata', arm armour, shoulder pieces, and although the head is badly eroded, there are faint traces of what MAY be interpreted as a 'crista transversa' ( but too tantalisingly faint to be positively identified as such).His method of strapping for his gladius scabbard is also interesting - similar to a western gunslinger with the scabbard worn high and strapped down (for quick draw?) BUT worn on the right .
Incidently, the helmets depicted are far too stylised to ascribe to types, other than that many show the crossed re-inforcements said to have been hastily introduced (along with arm armour) to counter the falx.
But I have rambled on enough for now - suffice to say the tropaeum and the column have far more similarities in what they depict than differences, even to the point of showing the same scene in some instances.

[Robert Vermaat]

Mr Paul McDonnell-Staff,
That was a good reply. The only thing you really need to do is add your real name to your signature - forum rules!

[Paullus Scipio]

Doh! ( again ! ) Sorry, Robert - I was so excited by one of my favourite topics ( I could bore the entire RAT subscription on this one subject ! ) that I banged it off too hastily without signature or name..........

[Robert Vermaat]

PM sent

[Caballo]

Paullus- great reply, and laudes!
"But I have rambled on enough for now - suffice to say the tropaeum and the column have far more similarities in what they depict than differences, even to the point of showing the same scene in some instances."

No, no- more please!

Cheers

Caballo

[Paullus Scipio]

Er....., we could discuss either the column or the tropaeum panel by panel, but that might steal some of Jon Coulston's thunder ( and the thought of a new book , long overdue, on the subject of "The Column" etc is enough to set one salivating! )
Was there some specific of either that you would wish to discuss more of ??

Paullus Scipio
Paul McDonnell-Staff
( see, Robert, I'm not a hopeless dinosaur after all....."hay foot, straw foot..")

[Tarbicus]

The tribesmen wielding the "Dacian" falxes are clearly NOT Dacian, but Celtic/Germanic tribesmen complete with 'suebian knot' hairstyles.

Or is that just an example of Dacians wearing the suebian knot?