01-31-2012, 02:00 AM
"With all do respect Crispvs, the artists who carved the reliefs had not even apparently seen a set of Lorica Segmentata for the most part they seem to be horribly inaccurate."
Nowhere in my article did I cite Trajan's Column as evidence for what I said. In the case of the column it is quite possible, even probable, that you are right.
However, equipment shown on the 1st century AD Rhineland stones often reflects finds from the archaeological record very closely, suggesting that there was a high degree of empirical observation by the sculptors, who are likely to have seen soldiers on a regular basis.
The Mainz column bases, although rather cartoon-like in their execution, were originally part of a building in a military base, which gives them some credence and furthermore, they again show a knowledge of equipment, as well as fighting methods.
The Adamklissi metopes are from a monument commemorating Trajan's Dacian campaigns, which is more or less contemporary with Trajan's column but which (unlike TC) was made in the area where the army was actually operating. Although the depiction is very stylised, again, these sculptures demonstrate a knowledge of equipment on the part of the sculptors.
It is true that none of these sculptures can be conclusively shown to show segmentata, but then, segmentata is virtually invisible in the sculptural record on the first century anyway. Trajan's column is the earliest place we really see it and we know we cannot trust anything we see on the column. To suggest though that the sculptors of the Rhineland stones, the Mainz bases and the Adamklissi metopes had never seen the equipment they were depicting, would be very wide of the mark, I think.
Crispvs
Nowhere in my article did I cite Trajan's Column as evidence for what I said. In the case of the column it is quite possible, even probable, that you are right.
However, equipment shown on the 1st century AD Rhineland stones often reflects finds from the archaeological record very closely, suggesting that there was a high degree of empirical observation by the sculptors, who are likely to have seen soldiers on a regular basis.
The Mainz column bases, although rather cartoon-like in their execution, were originally part of a building in a military base, which gives them some credence and furthermore, they again show a knowledge of equipment, as well as fighting methods.
The Adamklissi metopes are from a monument commemorating Trajan's Dacian campaigns, which is more or less contemporary with Trajan's column but which (unlike TC) was made in the area where the army was actually operating. Although the depiction is very stylised, again, these sculptures demonstrate a knowledge of equipment on the part of the sculptors.
It is true that none of these sculptures can be conclusively shown to show segmentata, but then, segmentata is virtually invisible in the sculptural record on the first century anyway. Trajan's column is the earliest place we really see it and we know we cannot trust anything we see on the column. To suggest though that the sculptors of the Rhineland stones, the Mainz bases and the Adamklissi metopes had never seen the equipment they were depicting, would be very wide of the mark, I think.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
