04-26-2011, 01:04 AM
Paul,
As far as the photo is attached, thank you for sharing. I too had not seen this sculpture in that much detail.
I know of the evidence of the fascia with respect to "off-duty" soldiers where they wear the fascia over their tunic followed by the belts. However, with respect to wearing this article of clothing over the armor and citing the Vacheres warrior, IMO, is not very good evidence. It's being worn by a person whose identity is questionable. If cavalry, then I do not think infantry reenactors should be wearing it. If it is a Celt dressing like a Roman, he may have added his own flair. To this end, I would not be running around with a fascia as an article of widespread use over armor. Over the tunic, is another story. Even the article by MC Bishop attached did not really claim use over the armor. As a matter of fact, he asks why it is not depicted with armor. I would think that if the Vacheres warrior was good evidence, it would have been included by Dr. Bishop.
However, with respect to the Vacheres Warrior details, the supposed fascia does not go around the entire waist. On the front facing picture there is no such indication since it's not there (at least when I look at it). Most reenactors that I have seen wear this fascia over the mail with the belt over it where some of the fascia appears above and below the edges of the belt. On the profile picture of this sculpture, this fascia does not go above the upper edge of the belt. It appears as a small piece on the lower part of the belt and by the sword. Is it not possible that its presence by the sword is to avoid the scabbard from having direct contact with the mail.
As far as the photo is attached, thank you for sharing. I too had not seen this sculpture in that much detail.
I know of the evidence of the fascia with respect to "off-duty" soldiers where they wear the fascia over their tunic followed by the belts. However, with respect to wearing this article of clothing over the armor and citing the Vacheres warrior, IMO, is not very good evidence. It's being worn by a person whose identity is questionable. If cavalry, then I do not think infantry reenactors should be wearing it. If it is a Celt dressing like a Roman, he may have added his own flair. To this end, I would not be running around with a fascia as an article of widespread use over armor. Over the tunic, is another story. Even the article by MC Bishop attached did not really claim use over the armor. As a matter of fact, he asks why it is not depicted with armor. I would think that if the Vacheres warrior was good evidence, it would have been included by Dr. Bishop.
However, with respect to the Vacheres Warrior details, the supposed fascia does not go around the entire waist. On the front facing picture there is no such indication since it's not there (at least when I look at it). Most reenactors that I have seen wear this fascia over the mail with the belt over it where some of the fascia appears above and below the edges of the belt. On the profile picture of this sculpture, this fascia does not go above the upper edge of the belt. It appears as a small piece on the lower part of the belt and by the sword. Is it not possible that its presence by the sword is to avoid the scabbard from having direct contact with the mail.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Paolo