Quote:I also wonder whether the Suppliant soldiers are only part revealed and if there is more below the ground? The two pictures show a slightly lower level of earth with more revealed?
These two further pictures of the Suppliant Soldiers show, as far as I know, the full extent of the relief. The quality is poor, as they are taken from photocopies, but it can be seen that the lower figure on the left extends to the waist, that the shield with the chi-rho emblem extends to below the boss and that there are two overlapping shields on the right, one plain and the other with a tendril ornament.
Quote:Bacatti (1960) studied scetches based on earlier drawings by Gentile Bellini and concluded that they were not those of the Column of Arcadius, but those of the Column of Theodosius. This was endorsed by Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli. These drawings are in the Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins. The drawings by Mathieu Lorichs and others of the Column of Arcadius are in Trinity College, Cambridge, Department of Drawings, Copenhagen and the Bibliotheqe Nationale, Paris. They are not one and the same I'm afraid. The styles of the panel and figures depicted are different in many cases.
I am not an expert but Kollwitz (1978, op.cit. p.21) expressly refutes these associations with the Column of Theodosius. If you follow the links above, you will find that both the ink drawings in the Louvre associated with "Battista" and the work of Menestrier purport to reproduce the drawings by Bellini which you mention. It appears that no original by Bellini is extant and Kollwitz believes the reference to Bellini to be simply false.
Kollwitz concludes that the drawings show the same column as the Freshfields album, i.e. the Arcadius column but they are full of "misunderstandings" ("Es lässt sich vielmehr ganz positiv zeigen, dass die Zeichnung des Louvre dieselbe Saeule zeigt wie die Frehsfieldschen Zeichnungen, nur dass sie dieselbe gänzlich missversteht."). To support this, he compares Menestrier plate 1 with Freshfields plate XXII, third spiral from below. Prima facie his argument appears convincing because there are many parallels. To me the parallel between Menestrier plate 16/17 (the strange triangular panels) and Freshfields plate XVI, 4th spiral from above is particularly striking.
Without having done any further research in this respect, I am personally inclined to follow Kollwitz and conclude that both documents show the same monument and one can speculate that, at the time they were made, the relief was already decayed to an extent that little in terms of details of equipment could be made out. This lead the artist producing the Freshfields drawings to show only the outlines of persons and animals, making the soldiers appear unarmoured and the artist producing the original artwork copied in Menestrier/Battista to add equipment in a style believed Roman at that time. Therefore I would use neither source as an indication of actual equipment at that time.
On the other hand, the extant reliefs shown above which are associated with the column of Theodosius are an excellent source for such equipment, but, as pointed out by others, extremely difficult to interpret.
Quote:Of course everyone will have noted that every infantryman has a muscle cuirasse, exactly bearing out what is shown in the line drawings. I just do not buy into the argument that its a case of 'classising', why then give the infantry contemporary helmets, shields, weapons etc. The fact that the cuirasses have visible rims, as discussed in a previous post I made, indicates that the cuirasses are metallic in origin.
In fact there is a surprising continuity in depictions of Roman soldiers in this type or armour from as early as the third century AD through to Byzantine times. More detailed depictions often show this armor as scale/lamellar. I have put together the following comparisons of just a very small numbers of depictions:
[attachment=768]Comparison_1.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=769]Comparison_2.jpg[/attachment]
The pictures show two different types of "muscle" cuirass: one being "stiff" with no or clearly separate shoulder coverings and one being soft. The stiff variant is often shown as scale/lamellar whereas the soft variant is sometimes shown as scale/mail(?) but some sort of textile/leather is also possible. Many monuments (e.g. the Dura paintings, the Ludovisi sarcophagus and the 5th century wooden carving from Egypt) shown some "muscle" cuirasses covered with scale/mail but others plain which implies that a solid metal/textile type may have existed in parallel with scale/mail types
Quote:Bacatti (1960) studied scetches based on earlier drawings by Gentile Bellini and concluded that they were not those of the Column of Arcadius, but those of the Column of Theodosius. This was endorsed by Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli. These drawings are in the Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins. The drawings by Mathieu Lorichs and others of the Column of Arcadius are in Trinity College, Cambridge, Department of Drawings, Copenhagen and the Bibliotheqe Nationale, Paris. They are not one and the same I'm afraid. The styles of the panel and figures depicted are different in many cases.
I am not an expert but Kollwitz (1978, op.cit. p.21) expressly refutes these associations with the Column of Theodosius. If you follow the links above, you will find that both the ink drawings in the Louvre associated with "Battista" and the work of Menestrier purport to reproduce the drawings by Bellini which you mention. It appears that no original by Bellini is extant and Kollwitz believes the reference to Bellini to be simply false.
Kollwitz concludes that the drawings show the same column as the Freshfields album, i.e. the Arcadius column but they are full of "misunderstandings" ("Es lässt sich vielmehr ganz positiv zeigen, dass die Zeichnung des Louvre dieselbe Saeule zeigt wie die Frehsfieldschen Zeichnungen, nur dass sie dieselbe gänzlich missversteht."). To support this, he compares Menestrier plate 1 with Freshfields plate XXII, third spiral from below. Prima facie his argument appears convincing because there are many parallels. To me the parallel between Menestrier plate 16/17 (the strange triangular panels) and Freshfields plate XVI, 4th spiral from above is particularly striking.
Without having done any further research in this respect, I am personally inclined to follow Kollwitz and conclude that both documents show the same monument and one can speculate that, at the time they were made, the relief was already decayed to an extent that little in terms of details of equipment could be made out. This lead the artist producing the Freshfields drawings to show only the outlines of persons and animals, making the soldiers appear unarmoured and the artist producing the original artwork copied in Menestrier/Battista to add equipment in a style believed Roman at that time. Therefore I would use neither source as an indication of actual equipment at that time.
On the other hand, the extant reliefs shown above which are associated with the column of Theodosius are an excellent source for such equipment, but, as pointed out by others, extremely difficult to interpret.
From my side I believe that whilst there will be simularities between both the Column of Theodosius and the Column of Arcadius (both were constructed within 25 years of each other and the Arcadius one's sculptors may well have copied styles etc), there are major differences in the depictions of the troops on both columns. The Column of Theodosius shows all the troops wearing muscle cuirasses, borne out by the surviving fragments shown here (I cannot understand why you claim that they are unarmoured, only the captured Goths and the baggage handlers plus civilians shown on the Column of Theodosius are not wearing armour.).
I've put a picture of the base of the Column of Arcadius so that people can compare the artwork between the various drawings-
[attachment=771]ColumnAC.jpg[/attachment]
If you compare the depictions of the captured Goths on what I believe are the drawings of the Column of Theodosius with those on the Column of Arcadius you will see that they are very different in style. The Goths on the Column of Theodosius are all unarmoured and look like standard artwork of 'barbarians' depicted on many monumental works. However, those depicted on the Column of Arcadius are shown either in mail hauberks or unarmoured and many are wearing Phyrgian caps. The Roman infantry on the panels are also wearing conical helmets without crests. I feel there are too many discrepancies for the drawings to be depicting the same monument.
Quote:I cannot understand why you claim that they are unarmoured, only the captured Goths and the baggage handlers plus civilians shown on the Column of Theodosius are not wearing armour.
You are misunderstanding me: I am not claiming that the soldiers on the surviving fragments are unarmored but that the Freshfields drawings of the Arcadius column show them unarmoured, see this fairly typical snippet:
[attachment=787]Null.jpg[/attachment]
Whether or not the Louvre drawings and the Freshfields album show the same column (as Kollwitz claims) is certainly disputable and to form a more informed opinion we would have to analyze both documents in detail. However, here are some parallels which I have detected upon a very short glance at both documents:
[attachment=788]A.jpg[/attachment]
Freshfields is on the left, Menestier on the right.
The difference in equipment is not really conclusive as both artists may have employed much liberty here. Compare Freshfields and the drawing by Melchior Lorichs here:
[attachment=789]B.jpg[/attachment]
Again, Freshfields appears to show unarmoured soldiers while Melchior Lorichs at least shows helmets. I apologize for the bad quality of all pictures.
Thank you for the comparison drawings, it does make matters a lot clearer.
Of course the other issue is that we have no idea at what angle the various artists were carrying out their drawings of the Columns. One can see from several of the drawings of the Column of Arcadius that the drawings were done from slightly different angles and perspectives.
What is interesting is that many of the infantry on the spiral Column of Arcadius are indeed unarmoured, but are wearing typical Late Roman 'Pill Box' type hats. Perhaps an indication that those troops are auxilia?
Comparing both sets of drawings I agree that in many respects they are similar, but again dissimilar. The one thing that stands out is the depiction of the armour the Roman infantry are wearing on what I feel are the drawings of the Column of Theodosius i.e. Muscle cuirasses, and also how the captured Goths on that Column are portrayed in the drawings as opposed to how they are depicted on the base of the Column of Arcadius.
Perhaps the scultor of the Column of Arcadius was the same one who did the artwork on the Column of Theodosius and incorporated much of the earlier artwork on the Later Column, not an unreasonable suggestion I think.
And for a further comparison, the same drawing from Battista. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have drawn the supplicant soldiers that survive from the column (too high up), but I was surprised that the details do not vary as much as I expected from the original- eg the helmets and cuirass.
The exchanges between Jens Horstkotte and Valentinian Victrix on Kollwitz' interpretation of the Battista/Menestrier drawings has prompted me to undertake something that I have intended to do for some time, namely, to check Kollwitz' assertion that the Menestrier and Freshfield illustrations are both of the Column of Arcadius by comparing the two sets of drawings against one another. In what follows, I designate the Menestrier illustrations by M followed by the number of the illustration in Roman numerals and the Freshfield drawings by F followed by a compass point for the side of the column illustrated (E, W and S; there is no view of the North side) plus a number for the band in question counting from the bottom of the column.
First, we must note Kollwitz' suggested correspondences as follows:
MI = FE3
MII & MIII = North side
MIV & MV (left-hand half) = FW3 & FS3
MVI = FE4
MVII & MVIII = North side
MIX & MX = FW4
MXI = unidentifiable (this should be the South side, so I have offered FS4 for comparison)
MXII & MXIII = FE5
MXIV & MXV = North side
MXVI & MXVII = FW5 & FS5
MXIII = FS6 & FE6
In each case, I have attempted to orientate the images by aligning what seem to be the corresponding figures. It will be seen that, although there is a superficial similarity between the foreground figures, there are also significant differences. For instance, the captured barbarians in the Menestrier illustrations are frequently shown as armed soldiers in the Freshfield drawings; this is particularly noticeable in MXVIII/FS6 & FE6. The arch in MXI is not to be seen in FS4. Also, the backgrounds are almost always different. Often, where some scenes seem to correspond, the scenes immediately before and after differ. This is especially so in the case of the most startling similarity, the scenes showing the peculiar triangular structures. Both the Menestrier and Freshfield images are preceded by a rural scene but these scenes are markedly different. The Menestrier image leads immediately to an architectural feature but the Freshfield scene is followed by figures on two levels, including one figure apparently submitting to a man on horseback and an elephant. The final scene (MXVIII) differs in many ways from the Freshfield equivalent. The architectural feature on the left is different; the figures on foot are different, as already noted; and there is only one boat as opposed to two in the Freshfield drawing. Most significantly, however, is a change in sequence. Previously, Kollwitz had suggested a sequence beginning FE3, North, FW3, FS3 etc. up to and including FS5. In this final scene, the sequence reverses. Instead of FE6, North, FW6, FS6 (as we would expect), we have FS6, FE6.
Members will reach their own conclusions as to the meaning of all this. Mine are that the two sets of illustrations do indeed represent different columns but that the later Column of Arcadius was heavily influenced by its predecessor, to the extent of being, in some instances, a close but not an exact copy.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
I would suggest (tentatively) that a more likely explanation is that Battista/Menestrier are illustrations of the same column (ie Arcadius).
For example, the visible remains of the column of Theodosius (see above for the "supplicant soldiers") do not appear to be replicated on either of the drawings- drawing me to the thought that the Menestrier drawings were mislabelled as being of the Column of Theodosius when they are actually of the column of Arcadius?
Quote:Members will reach their own conclusions as to the meaning of all this. Mine are that the two sets of illustrations do indeed represent different columns but that the later Column of Arcadius was heavily influenced by its predecessor, to the extent of being, in some instances, a close but not an exact copy.
I tend to agree with you.
However, I fear we can never prove either case, because we don't know what was visible at the time, what the artist could actually see (did they use ladders or binoculars to see details, or was it pure guesswork from the ground?), or if one or even both artists took shortcuts!
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
I too thank Micheal for all the time and effort he has put in with his post. I would like to add that I believe that any simularities that appeared on the columns would be due to a number of factors- The fact that both columns were so close to each other would surely have influenced the sculptors, and apparent simularities on the Column of Arcadius with those on the Column of Theodosius may well be due to the fact that the Column of Theodosius was erected at least 25 years before the Column of Arcadius and all a sculptor had to do was to take a short walk from one to the other and take down drawings and then use them as a basis for the depictions on the Column of Arcadius, whilst at the same time putting more contemporary images of Gothic infantry on it taking into account that by the time the Column of Arcadius was erected the Goth's had served for at least 30 years in the Eastern army and a number were barracked in Constantiople, thereby giving the sculptor of the later column living examples of the Goths on that column who significantly differ in appearance to those who appear on the drawings of the Column of Theodosius.
I have just purchased a copy of 'Babarians and Bishops' by J.H.W.G.Liebeschuetz. I had
originally thought that this work was published after Cameron's 'Barbarians and Politics at the Court od Arcadius'. However, I now discover that Liebeschuetz published his work first, having had permission to consult Cameron's unpublished draft before publication. The book is a goldmine of information about the events between Adrianopolis and the defeat of Gainas. The real find is that at the end
of the book are a number of plates devoted to the Column of Arcadius, including a plate of the souyh side of the base I had not seen before.
This plate is a Godsend for those of us who believe that metallic/textile/leather cuirasses were worn by Late Roman troops as it shows a continuation of the trophy scene from the rather better known North side I put a link to a thread about. This clearly shows two muscle cuirasses on trophy stands, two laying on the ground AND TWO SCALE CUIRASSES! There are also spears, oval and round shield, spatha swords, bows, quivers, axes, tubular arm/leg armour and those helmets with faces such as were worn by the Clibanarii.
Unfortunaetly I cannot find a weblink to this particular view.
![[Image: Battista12.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/PaulHB/Battista12.jpg)
![[Image: Battista10.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/PaulHB/Battista10.jpg)
![[Image: Battista7.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/PaulHB/Battista7.jpg)
![[Image: wip2_r1_c1-1-1.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/PaulHB/wip2_r1_c1-1-1.jpg)
![[Image: Comitatuslogo3.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/PaulHB/Comitatuslogo3.jpg)
