New CLASSIS-soldier (!!) tombstone discovered in Italy

[Dan Howard]

For what it is worth I don't doubt the fact that some Roman troops wore leather armour - whether scale or a solid cuirass. What I will never believe is that they wore leather segmentata unless someone finds a specific source supporting this (in which case we will finally learn what the Roman term for segmented lorica was) or some remnants show up in a dig (plenty of other leather artefacts have been found). Mr Peterson has clearly outlined some of the reasons against the use of leather segmentata. Nobody has given a sensible reason to support the use of segmented leather. To look at sculptural evidence and claim that you can determine the materials various components are made from is ridiculous.

[MARCENTIUS]

Dear Dan,
what I find really ridiculous is to think that by modern experience we can deny or proof if a piece of armour was made, without thinking at the way in which the Romans lived, about their physical constitution, their technology in the making of the armour.
Did You think really that some contemporary man can live as the Romans lived ? Did You think really that a contemporary man (of course in Country where the life is comfortable) used to go by car in every moment of life, can go walking by horse or by feet every day covering long distances, eating, making love, fighting, hunting, as the Romans did in their times ?
So any modern experiment can be sometimes useful, but never we will reach the possibility to understand definitely the degree of similarity of our modern re-enactement with the ancient world.
Not only a way to learn the ancient world is to compare sculptures made by different artists, but we should also use the sources in a combined way. If the same piece of equipment is visible on more sculptures, we can find confirmation of its use in a determinate period ; and when the ability of the sculptor is high, higher will be our capacity to understand the structure of the garment or of the piece of the armour, comparing it with the archaeological remains when available and with the descriptions of the written sources.
Not only, but the hand of the same sculptor show us differences among buckles, bosses, pieces of armour, grip of the swords, nails of the caligae...All these small details are confirmed by archaeology. Did You think really that it is a chance? How many times did You see with Your eyes the whole range of the figures of the Trajan column, for instance ? How many times did You look at the armours and garments represented on the pedestal of the column ? Why the thickness of pteryges in some artistic works done by the same artists on the same monument is different ? Why the traces of colour on the armour of some stelae are yellow, grey or brown ?
The modern world has created, as You know, different words for the classifications of type of armours. These classifications never existed in the Roman world. But the sources are mentioning the different names of armour. If lorica (did You know what is the etymology of the word lorica ? ) was the most used name a lot of adjectives were employed to show which kind of elements composed the armour. And we should remember that the latin was not the only language of the Roman army, especially in Eastern part of Empire. I know that in the movie "the Passion" some Australian director forgot the presence of the Greek civilisation in East, but the archaeological evidence is different. As well for the leather, where a lot of fragments, found, are waiting to be classified.
Nobody has given a sensible reason to support the use of segmented leather ? Then explain me why the rule of segmented armour made by organic material is correct for Asiatic civilisations, as well as for the Sea People and Egyptians, but not for Romans...In the movie Anno Domini the costume expert Enrico Sabatini reconstructed in a excellent way the segmentata armour mentioned by me in the last e-mail, and it works perfectly.
But to return to our latin, please, translate for me in English this passage, from Valerius Flaccus :

"Nam pectora ferro terribilesque innexa iubas ruit agmine nigro latratuque agmine cohors"

Best wishes
Dr. Raffaele D’Amato

[Tarbicus]

"Nam pectora ferro terribilesque innexa iubas ruit agmine nigro latratuque agmine cohors"

You know, writing that without giving the translation is like giving a smoker a cigarette but nothing to light it with. I can't even find what "agmine" means. :? ?:

[Antonius Lucretius]

Could someone tell me why I have to log in three times in a row to be able to get in there?
It's annoying.

Now, dear Dr. D'Amato,
The name is Antonius Lucretius, not Groucho. Groucho was a humourist. Check the word "humourist" in the dictionary.
You are very good at sidetracking and expressing a mild contempt for those who do not agree with you.
For your information, I know how to eat ice creams.
Anyways... I made a reference to the legend of Horatius Cocles because, precisely the legend does not correspond to the historical reality: Horatius Cocles may or may not have worn a lined cuirass, and he may or may not have swam the Tiber in it.
It's not the point. That is called sidetracking. The point is that the legend says he saved Rome whereas history tells us that Lars Porsenna the Etruscan actually took Rome. So I'm afraid I'll take your Valerius Maximus quotes at face value: a propaganda piece. That we are sure of. It may or may not have happened but we'll never know because all we have is a writer saying one centurion swan with two cuirasses. It's not because it's two thousand years old that it's either true, or smart. They had liars and idiots too, then.
You make references to byzantine, russian and medieval leather armour. Honestly I don't know much about medieval armour. However I know quite a bit about ancient --that is pre-medieval-- armour, which is the matter at hand.
Not medieval Byzantium or Russia. Sidetracking again..
I am sure you have a lot of hard evidence to prove the existence of leather armour in ancient times because indeed, leather or horn armour existed in ancient times. I am very impatient to see it and I am sure I am not the only one to be impatient. I could also indulge in sidetracking and remind you that the scythian tombs revealed a lot of metallic armour and little if any leather protections.
But for the moment, there is no archaeological evidence pointing to the use of cuirasses of leather by roman soldiers.
Roman soldiers. Not Scythians, Sarmatians or medieval Russians.
Romans.
That is quite surprising actually since there is a lot of archaeological evidence for many other items made of organic material: shield covers, tents, belts, baldrics, shoes, satchels, shield boards, helmet liners, cloth of all kind.. And yet not a single little bit of evidence regarding roman leather armour.
I find it odd, to say the least.
Then I think about it a bit and I find it not so odd. The roman civilisation was an iron rich culture. They did not make leather armour simply because they had enough metal and metal workers to dispense with it. A culture that was able to massively protect its soldiers with metallic armour did not have to bother about leather protections, really.
So, for the moment, and awaiting the undeniable proof you've have been promising us for quite some time now, I'll state again that, as far as I am concerned, the only true, undeniable proof that I know of leather armour is this gallic helmet with leather cheekpieces and liner shown on Osprey's "Rome's Enemies, Gallic and British Celts".
...And it's not Roman..
As for the Trajan's Column pedestal: if you are talking about the sets of banded armour, my idea is that it was metallic banded armour piped with bronze. As for the scale coats on that same pedestal they are made of ribbed scales, if I remember well. Most likely metal than leather.
Do I have proof of that?
Yes indeed! the same ones as yours! :lol:
Yours truly,
Groucho Marx.

[Dan Howard]

So where is this evidence that leather segmented armour was utilised in Asia? I can't find anything. According to Robinson, in China there was leather armour cut like a coat called a "kia" and leather scale armour called "kiai". In Scythia we find the same two types of armour. The same with the Mongols later. In China during the Warring states period there is the introduction of lacquered lamellar which gradually supplanted scale as a preferred body armour. No evidence of banded or segmented leather in North America or Russia either. In China during the Northern Wei Dynasty there are sculptures of cavalry with segmented armour but nothing to suggest that the plates weren't made of metal. There is armour in the Kin Dynasty that might have been segmented but the phrase "t'ao kia" more likely refers to the fact that the leather was decorated in bands of colour rather than being made from segmented bands. Robinson cites the banner found in the Cave of the Thousand Buddhas with what appears to be a warrior in segmented armour but there is nothing to indicate whether the armour was leather or metal. He also mentions Japanese segmented armour of the Yamato Period called "tanko" but again this was made of metal. Later periods also utilised segmented armour but it was all metal. Some of it was covered with leather, but none was made from leather. There is nothing to indicate that the Sea Peoples or the Egyptians wore segmented leather armour (don't bother trying to cite from the Medinet Habu relief - those carvings can be interpreted a hundred different ways). There is definitely no evidence for segmented leather in Medieval Europe. So I ask again, where is this abundant evidence for the use of leather segmented armour in Asia? In fact I can't find unambiguous evidence of leather segmented armour anywhere in the world.

I would also like to know how you know that traces of yellow, grey or brown colour on a sculpture automatically indicates that the object was made from a certain material. Is there some "universal colour key" that you are privy to that the rest of us are not?

[MARCENTIUS]

For Tarbicus :

Dear Tarbicus

agmine is ablative case for agmen, agminis

As You know, it means "army, band" also "legion" sometimes

But sorry, I put two times the word agmine in writing the text

The translation is

Nam pectora ferro terribilesque innexa iubas ruit agmine nigro latratuque cohors...

"In fact the cohors broke into, with the bodies protected by iron and by the terrible skin coats, all the army growling in a dark way as..."

For Antonius :

dear Antonius Lucretius, I know the movies of the brothers Marx. In fact I see that You are a humourist as well.
I do not want sidetracking people at opposite I want to induce the people to think about the Romans in a more universal way.
The historian and the archaeologist who want to deal with the Roman miles can not approach the argument in "watertight compartments" i.e. underlining the evidence of only some aspects. It is at opposite the fusion of different moments that must be requested to the searcher of ancient uniformology. We have to learn Latin and Greek exegesis, Latin and Greek philology, ancient art history, archaeology, history of the weapons, etc...
That does not exclude that all the people can approach the argument as they want but I am explaining my way to approach.
If You know, as I am sure, the original authors that refer the legend of Horatius Cocles, no one said that him or Mutius Scaevola won the wars for Rome : just they mentioned heroic exploits ; but all the authors attested the consignment of hostages to Lars Porsenna. Of course sidetracking was done not saying how many Romans were killed or how many time Rome was again under the Etruscans even though we have archaeological proofs of a victorious coalition against the Etruscans not many time after the reconquest of the power by the Tarquinii. And also it is attested by the sources : the battle of the Lake Regillum in 494 BC.
The quotation of Valerius Maximus is other matter : in his work "Memorabilia" there is not propagandistic intents, just the work of an erudite who wrote a book having at his disposition many sources now not more available. But over all, a man who lived at the time where the armours we are learning were used. So forgive me, but among the knowledge of an ancient author and the knowledge of a modern one, I give much more confidence to the first one.
The history said us of the exploits of Napoleon at the Ponte d’Arcole. Also it could be propaganda. Also at the time of Napoleon were liars and idiots. But I do not have doubt that the exploits of Napoleon were true. Why I have to doubt of people writing at the time of Napoleon ?
My reference to Byzantium is not sidetracking, if You know what it is Byzantium, i.e. the Roman Empire which continued in the so called Middle Age.
But when You did speak about ancient, now, You were sidetracking me. Because I mentioned Egyptians, Sea Peoples, Greeks, also. Did You have any doubt about the use of armours made of organic materials in these cultures ? If You know a bit about ancient armour, Your answer is for sure not. There are may be the Egyptian, Greek, Persian sources more trustworthy of the Roman sources ? So why we have to doubt about the Romans ?
I do not have nothing against the use of metal armour. It is pacific for me. If I would say that Romans do not use metal armours I should be considered a crazy man and a liar for sure. But what the problem with leather armour and especially in a army of 60.000 men like the army of Trajan in Dacia in 101 AD?
And what about the parts of metallic armour (shoulder pieces, small fittings, etc...) find in graves without the main body ?
A culture that was able to massively protect its soldiers with metallic armour did not have anything against the massive use of the leather, also.
Of course, if the general opinion is to reject as fake all the Roman sources, to give more importance and evidence to the modern authors, we are now speaking in two different directions.
Can bronze be folded ?

Yours truly, a bientot
Dr. Raffaele D’Amato

PS For Dan: i will reply in week, forgive me. Now is time to sleep

[Tarbicus]

The translation is
Nam pectora ferro terribilesque innexa iubas ruit agmine nigro latratuque cohors...
"In fact the cohors broke into, with the bodies protected by iron and by the terrible skin coats, all the army growling in a dark way as..."

Thankyou. No need for the Nicorettes now.

As You know, it means "army, band" also "legion" sometimes

Harumph Why of course I did. I was only joking....... ahem :oops:

[Praefectusclassis]

Guys, before this discussion gets out of hand and/or repetitive, I strongly suggest you start quoting sources, book, chapter and verse! 8)

[Dan Howard]

the translation is

Nam pectora ferro terribilesque innexa iubas ruit agmine nigro latratuque cohors...

"In fact the cohors broke into, with the bodies protected by iron and by the terrible skin coats, all the army growling in a dark way as..."

Thanks for the translation. It certainly suggests that hide armour may have been utilised, but there is nothing in that passage to suggest that it was segmented. I don't think anyone here is discounting the possibility or even the likelihood that many ancient cultures used leather armour. The contention is whether any of this leather or hide was segmented.

[Praefectusclassis]

It's always illuminating to look at the context of a certain source. The quote above comes from the Argonautica and Valerius Flaccus is therefore describing a mythical past. The battle he recounts here specifically is located somewhere in the north-eastern part of the black sea / Caucasus. It's the same general area where the Amazons were supposed to be and where Herodotos wrote people lived with their heads on their chests. Read the whole description of all the peoples coming to war. Interesting, but it doesn't feel very historical.
The translation for the whole sentence (from which the quote) given by the Loeb edition, which starts with "Iam" (now, not 'nam' - for), reads: "Now, their breasts and dreadful crests entwined with iron, the troop rushes on in black array and with baying loud as that which rings at the grim gate of Dis or from Hecate's escort to the world above."

There was something else interesting in Book VI, but I'll start another topic for that.

[Dan Howard]

If Dr D'Amato's translation is correct then there is no reason why the passage can't be used as a source to support the existence of leather armour *if* it is used along with more concrete supporting evidence. For example, Homer mentions leather armour and helms, suggesting that the Mykenaians may have used leather armour. But by itself it makes for a weak argument.

[Praefectusclassis]

there is no reason why the passage can't be used as a source

I'd say that stuck in the middle of such a story, an epic poem, referring to the mythical lands of the east, there is plenty of reason to be wary of what is being said.
Homer, instead, is describing something that is both geographically and chronologically much closer to his own time and region, moreover, (but that's a tricky part too), it was passed on orally long before he wrote it down, making his references possibly more reliable.

[Dan Howard]

For those who might be interested. This is Scythian rawhide scale armour - currently located in the MET. It is in beautiful condition.

http://forums.swordforum.com/attachment ... tid=532387

BTW how do you attach images to a post on this board? I tried using the tags around the above link but it didn't work.

[MARCENTIUS]

Gentleman all
just a little precisation about the word "juba"
The meaning could be crest (like in Iohannidos - Corippus - Juba Equina) or skin jacket (Daremberg-Saliot under voice juba)
Now here I have found a more adherent meaning to jacket, but not for support at any cost my opinion, just because the construction of the armament in the description is by the link of the accusative pectora with the word iron:

- innexa (entwisted, covered) + pectora+ferro (iron)
- terribiles + jubas

so if I say innexa pectora ferro et terribiles jubas

we are speaking about two kind of armour covering the body.

Some people can hovewer translate terribiles jubas as "terrible crests"

Argonautica are a epic poem but many references in the description of the peoples are very akin to the contemporary peoples in the first century AD. For example the Bastarnae are described exactly as met by the Romans of Domitian in the unlucky Dacian Campaign

So we can suppose that the references are to contemporary military practices of Romans and others.

About Sea People and Easterners, just to answer to the kind request of Dan, I divide the opinion of Stillman and Tallis in the book Armies of the ANE, saying that some armour found in the Medinet Habu, Karnak, Abu Simbel reliefs are "banded linen (found in Egyptian graves) and/or banded leather"

Of course in the same reliefs, where luckily the traces of colour are still good, You can see armours of Dendra type (shorter, now we will say: of Thiva type) painted in yellow colour (i.e. bronze: in this way reconstructed by Gorelik) together with banded armours in more colours (blue, red, etc...). These last are normally considered by archaeologists as painted leather.

As You know the Achaeans were a part of the Sea People so the reference You correctly did to Homer is the linking I wanted to show You. We know from the Mancester archaeologists that the Achaeans are even portrayed in Medinet abu relief.

Also in many other Egyptian painting appear what is (for the Egyptologists) broad leather bands covering part of the torso of charioteers. Leather armour was most used in the breast, as bands around the trunk. There are artifacts of leather netting that was worn over the soldier's kilt: in Museo Egizio of Torino we have it, saying some archaeologists that they were used also to double the protection of the linen armour or other textile armour always wrapped in bands around shoulder and trunk

About Asiatic examples, I have to quote You the word meaning "part of a leather armour made of goat skin" used in Hurrite text and passed to the Hittite where the meaning is "part of the leather armour covered with scales"

I have hovewer not with me my texts today so I will quote it in a more precise way this evening

Then, Gentlemen: I have idea that we are writing here the history of the humanity in these change of opinions. May be the best solution (also to answer to the question of the colours in the Dan e-mail) is to present You in the work we are doing all the evidences we have: then will be up to You to decide the final outcome. This is not in any case an advertisement...of course....

I am happy in anycase that we are speaking about arguments that can contribute to enlarge, in some way, all the views about the Roman armament

Best wishes to all

Raf

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Raffaele,
Are you sure your translation came from Daremberg-Saglio? Me being curious now, checked it and couldn't find an entry for Iuba (nor Juba). In fact, the last entry before Iuda was, appropriately, Jason!
The Oxford Latin Dictonary gives as possible translations for Iuba:
1. The flowing hair on an animal's neck b) where the mane grows
2. A crest or plume (usu. made of horsehair)
3. various things analogous to or resembling manes.