09-15-2009, 07:56 AM
I received my copy yesterday and must admit that I am writing this without having completed more than a first scan of the book. Adding to Caballo's review I must say that I have extremely mixed feelings about this book.
To start with the positive: it is a treasure trove of finds and reliefs hitherto unknown (at least to me). It may make the reenactment world much more interesting with an even larger variety of equipment. Bronze segmentatas and gilded bone squamae were all new to me. I have also never before seen the leather "armour" from Egypt, which to me, however, at first glance looks more like the leather body protection used by charioteers than real body armour.
On the other hand, the book is definitely not a book on the Roman Army from Marius to Commodus as its title would suggest. It is a very important statement in the ongoing debate on the reliability of artistic depictions of Roman military equipment and on the use of leather or other non metallic body armour by the Roman army but not a fair summary of the evidence we have on the appearance of the Roman army in this period and should not be marketed as such. The effect of the books focus on the aforementioned issues is two-fold:
First of all it expands on the exceptional and exotic while disregarding the regular and normal. Anybody looking for basic information on the appearance of the Roman army during this period will be ill-served by this book because he will simply not find much of the finds and depictions which form the basis of the "traditional" view of the Roman army. For us who have seen all of the "classic" books on this topic this is actually a benefit because it would be quite boring to see the 116th picture of the Corbridge hoard or the Mainz bases but for the general public it will limit the value of the book as an overview of the period.
Secondly and more importantly, the author's intention to present "rare" finds and to establish the use of equipment hitherto believed to be pure artistic convention means that the wealth of evidence presented is structured only in the most basic way and there appears to be no in depth analysis of spatial and temporal differences and developments in equipment. For example there was a considerable development in terms of equipment from the Flavian to the Antonine period. This has even been termed the "Antonine revolution". This development is lost where photos and reconstructions show individual exotic pieces (such as many fanciful "parade" helmets) rather than pieces more typical for the large number of finds made with respect to each period. There also appears to be little discussion of these issues in the text.
However, the most important reservation I have is about the reconstruction drawings. I do not have as strong feelings about the "leather" debate as many other people here have. We know that most or all of the peoples who particularly influenced Roman military equipment such as the Etruscans, Celts, Spanish and the Greek made extensive use of non-metallic body armour and also helmets and therefore it is only reasonable to assume that the Romans will have done so too. Archaeological evidence is naturally scance but e.g. it is fairly clear both from finds (Mannheim type helmets) and from reliefs (Osuna, Domitius A. altar) that early models of Roman helmets may have had textile or leather cheek pieces. Therefore I find it completely reasonable to reconstruct Caelius' armour and other similar pieces which resemble Greek tube and yoke cuirasses (fka linothorax) which are know to have been non-metallic as non-metallic although it is just as likely that they may been mail.
However, I find the author's use of other sculptural evidence neither reasonable nor coherent. On the one hand he correctly identifies many reliefs as stylized representations of known pieces of military equipment (e.g. Agen-Port helmets) on the other hand he takes representations at face value which - in my opinion - can easily be identified as similar stylizations. In my opinion the reasonable approach to sculptural evidence should be: If it resembles a known piece of equipment, it should be presumed to depict such piece of equipment, if it does not (such as the enigmatic crest rings on Trajan's column), we are open to speculate that something may existed which we have not yet found.
The author's approach, however, appears to be that we should take sculptural evidence at face value as long as we cannot establish it to be incorrect. On that basis he forces poor Caius Valerius Crispus back into his leather "patchwork trousers" (inherited from Lindenschmit) although they can easily be identified as the clumsy representation of Pteryges and has Marius' mule wear a masked Negau helmet when the relief can just as well be interpreted as a stylized Port type helmet (if you look closely, there is a vertical line through the "mask" which divides it into two cheek pieces of normal type and the "scroll" on the helmet can be identified as the normal "eyebrow" or "eye" motif on this type of helmet).
The essence of the author's approach (and to me the pure HORROR) is the poor legionary from the Portonaccio sarcophagus. The relief itself is a very typical example of the way in which the depiction of military equipment became more fantastic during the Antonine period. This can easily be explained by the fact that the artists became more and more unfamiliar with the actual equipment. They were working at the best from official paintings of campaigns and at the worst simply copying Trajan's column. At the same time artists became less interested in depicting reality and more interested in expressing the horrors of war. With this background, the relief can easily be explained as a legionary in normal metal segmentata with a Weisenau helmet (indicated by the scroll) and a traditional apron (degenerated into the piece of cloth somehow fitted through the belt). All of this does not necessarily mean that this equipment was still in use in this period but may have been copied from other monuments.
The crest ring is also represented on both columns and remains an enigma (although the Niedermönter helmet does have such a ring). I see three possible explanations: (a) a degenerated depiction of a crest knob, (b) a degenerated depiction of the circular feathered helmet decoration which is shown on the Trajanic triumphal frieze and the Cumae reliefs and may have been particular to the guard in Rome or © the ring may have started as an attachment device for a metal crest on Trajan's column and may have been copied from that column afterwards. It will be interesting to see how J.C.N. Coulston in his forthcoming "All the Emperor's Men: Roman Soldiers and Barbarians on Trajan's Column".
What does the author make of this? He clads the legionary in a leather segmentata which is supposedly based on the find from Egypt but looks more like a mix of the relief and the find and has him wear on his head what looks like a bronze age night pot with leather cheek pieces. Whereas the assumption that this relief would show leather rather than metal may still be justified by the - to me remote - resemblance with the Egyptian piece of equipment, the helmet appears to be completely arbitrary and also incoherent with the author's approach on other sculptural evidence as it NEITHER resembles the relief NOR any known piece of Roman equipment.
Finally, in the wealth of "exotic" pieces presented, we also find dear friends from past debates such as the Toledo helmet and Gansser's controversial reconstructions from "Das Leder und seine Verarbeitung im römischen Legionslager Vindonissa". At least with respect to the Toledo helmet, the objections to its genuineness are mentioned, on the leather finds I will have to read more carefully. To many this may appear annoying but I believe that it is useful and productive to review positions even on such widely discussed matters every now and then. The author also has depicts other equipment which either is doubtful (the unprovenanced Hamburg helmet is so far removed both in technique and form from any other known Roman helmet and so close to the Victorian idea of the Roman helmet that would be inclined to contact the fraud department if it were on sale on ebay) or limited relevance (at least one "helmet" appears to be a fragment from a statue).
In summary, I have very rarely felt so much joy and pain in reading a book on this topic before, and, although I disagree with most of the author's conclusions, you cannot enter the debate if you do not read it.
To start with the positive: it is a treasure trove of finds and reliefs hitherto unknown (at least to me). It may make the reenactment world much more interesting with an even larger variety of equipment. Bronze segmentatas and gilded bone squamae were all new to me. I have also never before seen the leather "armour" from Egypt, which to me, however, at first glance looks more like the leather body protection used by charioteers than real body armour.
On the other hand, the book is definitely not a book on the Roman Army from Marius to Commodus as its title would suggest. It is a very important statement in the ongoing debate on the reliability of artistic depictions of Roman military equipment and on the use of leather or other non metallic body armour by the Roman army but not a fair summary of the evidence we have on the appearance of the Roman army in this period and should not be marketed as such. The effect of the books focus on the aforementioned issues is two-fold:
First of all it expands on the exceptional and exotic while disregarding the regular and normal. Anybody looking for basic information on the appearance of the Roman army during this period will be ill-served by this book because he will simply not find much of the finds and depictions which form the basis of the "traditional" view of the Roman army. For us who have seen all of the "classic" books on this topic this is actually a benefit because it would be quite boring to see the 116th picture of the Corbridge hoard or the Mainz bases but for the general public it will limit the value of the book as an overview of the period.
Secondly and more importantly, the author's intention to present "rare" finds and to establish the use of equipment hitherto believed to be pure artistic convention means that the wealth of evidence presented is structured only in the most basic way and there appears to be no in depth analysis of spatial and temporal differences and developments in equipment. For example there was a considerable development in terms of equipment from the Flavian to the Antonine period. This has even been termed the "Antonine revolution". This development is lost where photos and reconstructions show individual exotic pieces (such as many fanciful "parade" helmets) rather than pieces more typical for the large number of finds made with respect to each period. There also appears to be little discussion of these issues in the text.
However, the most important reservation I have is about the reconstruction drawings. I do not have as strong feelings about the "leather" debate as many other people here have. We know that most or all of the peoples who particularly influenced Roman military equipment such as the Etruscans, Celts, Spanish and the Greek made extensive use of non-metallic body armour and also helmets and therefore it is only reasonable to assume that the Romans will have done so too. Archaeological evidence is naturally scance but e.g. it is fairly clear both from finds (Mannheim type helmets) and from reliefs (Osuna, Domitius A. altar) that early models of Roman helmets may have had textile or leather cheek pieces. Therefore I find it completely reasonable to reconstruct Caelius' armour and other similar pieces which resemble Greek tube and yoke cuirasses (fka linothorax) which are know to have been non-metallic as non-metallic although it is just as likely that they may been mail.
However, I find the author's use of other sculptural evidence neither reasonable nor coherent. On the one hand he correctly identifies many reliefs as stylized representations of known pieces of military equipment (e.g. Agen-Port helmets) on the other hand he takes representations at face value which - in my opinion - can easily be identified as similar stylizations. In my opinion the reasonable approach to sculptural evidence should be: If it resembles a known piece of equipment, it should be presumed to depict such piece of equipment, if it does not (such as the enigmatic crest rings on Trajan's column), we are open to speculate that something may existed which we have not yet found.
The author's approach, however, appears to be that we should take sculptural evidence at face value as long as we cannot establish it to be incorrect. On that basis he forces poor Caius Valerius Crispus back into his leather "patchwork trousers" (inherited from Lindenschmit) although they can easily be identified as the clumsy representation of Pteryges and has Marius' mule wear a masked Negau helmet when the relief can just as well be interpreted as a stylized Port type helmet (if you look closely, there is a vertical line through the "mask" which divides it into two cheek pieces of normal type and the "scroll" on the helmet can be identified as the normal "eyebrow" or "eye" motif on this type of helmet).
The essence of the author's approach (and to me the pure HORROR) is the poor legionary from the Portonaccio sarcophagus. The relief itself is a very typical example of the way in which the depiction of military equipment became more fantastic during the Antonine period. This can easily be explained by the fact that the artists became more and more unfamiliar with the actual equipment. They were working at the best from official paintings of campaigns and at the worst simply copying Trajan's column. At the same time artists became less interested in depicting reality and more interested in expressing the horrors of war. With this background, the relief can easily be explained as a legionary in normal metal segmentata with a Weisenau helmet (indicated by the scroll) and a traditional apron (degenerated into the piece of cloth somehow fitted through the belt). All of this does not necessarily mean that this equipment was still in use in this period but may have been copied from other monuments.
The crest ring is also represented on both columns and remains an enigma (although the Niedermönter helmet does have such a ring). I see three possible explanations: (a) a degenerated depiction of a crest knob, (b) a degenerated depiction of the circular feathered helmet decoration which is shown on the Trajanic triumphal frieze and the Cumae reliefs and may have been particular to the guard in Rome or © the ring may have started as an attachment device for a metal crest on Trajan's column and may have been copied from that column afterwards. It will be interesting to see how J.C.N. Coulston in his forthcoming "All the Emperor's Men: Roman Soldiers and Barbarians on Trajan's Column".
What does the author make of this? He clads the legionary in a leather segmentata which is supposedly based on the find from Egypt but looks more like a mix of the relief and the find and has him wear on his head what looks like a bronze age night pot with leather cheek pieces. Whereas the assumption that this relief would show leather rather than metal may still be justified by the - to me remote - resemblance with the Egyptian piece of equipment, the helmet appears to be completely arbitrary and also incoherent with the author's approach on other sculptural evidence as it NEITHER resembles the relief NOR any known piece of Roman equipment.
Finally, in the wealth of "exotic" pieces presented, we also find dear friends from past debates such as the Toledo helmet and Gansser's controversial reconstructions from "Das Leder und seine Verarbeitung im römischen Legionslager Vindonissa". At least with respect to the Toledo helmet, the objections to its genuineness are mentioned, on the leather finds I will have to read more carefully. To many this may appear annoying but I believe that it is useful and productive to review positions even on such widely discussed matters every now and then. The author also has depicts other equipment which either is doubtful (the unprovenanced Hamburg helmet is so far removed both in technique and form from any other known Roman helmet and so close to the Victorian idea of the Roman helmet that would be inclined to contact the fraud department if it were on sale on ebay) or limited relevance (at least one "helmet" appears to be a fragment from a statue).
In summary, I have very rarely felt so much joy and pain in reading a book on this topic before, and, although I disagree with most of the author's conclusions, you cannot enter the debate if you do not read it.
Regards,
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
