Nix Imperial Officer Boots

[Celtic505]

Are the Roman Officer boots offered by Terry Nix Imperial accurate? I think they seem okay, except for the metal lion head, which to me seems like from all depictions would be real and made of skin of a young cub. Would these be okay to wear for a reconstruction?

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Dennis,

I own a pair of these and the main flaw is the leather. Seems to be treated with modern chemicals. I've tried to disguise it by dyeing them dark brown.

I agree about the lions, which is why I ordered the boots without them. That should bring the price down by $50.00. Not all officer boots had lions heads.

The general pattern is faithfully reproduced from an actual statue. The faux fur I had removed myself and replaced it with leather.





But if I were you, Dennis, I would get a quote first from some online shoemaker before I would buy the boots from Nix. Here's a good place to start : http://www.armlann.com/index.htm

Good luck !

~Theo

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Ave,

You could also look into purchasing a pair of all leather or suede boots and cutting them up yourself. (just make sure they're flat without a separate modern heel)

Actually, that’s my current project (amongst several others!) and the result is pretty good. I’ll have photos shortly, just as soon as I put the finishing touches on my subarmails, and my lorica, and my shoulder doublers, and my…. Eeek! I still have a lot of work to do! LOL

Seriously though, I’m not sure if I agree with the lion cub theory. The heads on the Roman Equestrian Boots, those Hellenistic style boots, are always missing the lower jaw and have more of a Gorgon/lion head look to them… as opposed to a lion cub. I think they were appliqués.

Also, what some people think are paws (actually three paws, two on the sides, one on the back with the lion head attached to the tongue of the boot) look more like bunched up fabric. I think they're seeing lion skin or cloth, haning down, bunched together with a running stitch to form a kind of tassel. Note: there are too many "fingers" to be paws.

These are boots of Julius Caesar, this is my current project:


[size=150:3nuqgsmg]Thanks BID TIME to Gioi for the photos and design![/size]



Here's another example, you can see the lower jaw is missing again (typical) and the rather flat applique of a gorgon/lion... this too does not look like a lion cub and when you see it very close up... the 'paws' look like cloth or animal skin bunched up, not paws



UPDATE: Hummmmmmm... it seems I may have undercut my own theory, I came across this example which does apear to have paws or claws, although only two 'fingers' ... so, I guess they did (at least once) use a small animal pelt with paws. But again, it does have a flat applique like lion with the lower jaw missing:
[url:3nuqgsmg]http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=herculesfoothuge1gi6.jpg[/url]

[Celtic505]

Thanks Theodosius and Anthony!!!

Anthony- In your opinion, do you think the appliques were made out of metal or some kind of fabric/animal skin?

Also, the designs on the boots and roman daisies, what do you guys think they were made from?

Or perhaps it would be easier for me to make some senatorial calcei instead....

[Tarbicus]

If you look at the first photo Anthony posted and look at the right foot (left of photo), see how the head outline goes up to the top of the boot, and then returns to the right and continues down to become the lion's leg and foot? Definitely a one-piece cub pelt IMHO. A strap is used to keep it neat and tidy at the top.

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Ave,

Also, the designs on the boots and roman daisies, what do you guys think they were made from?

Appliques are possible however, I think we're looking at wet forming. e.g. a boot template was made, all carved out with details, it was pushed into a wet leather boot, and once dried, the shape of the outline was retained.

Anthony- In your opinion, do you think the appliqués were made out of metal or some kind of fabric/animal skin?

Firstly, please keep in mind we’re interpreting a sculpture and it is possible for two intelligent people to come two completely different conclusions.

What I see is an appliqué that is far too flat to be a stuffed animal head (lion cub).

Why would the lower jaw be removed if it was stuffed? From a taxidermy standpoint, it would be far more logical to stuff the head if it was intact and sew the back of the throat closed; as opposed to removing the lower jaw and then trying to sew that closed.

Also the eyes are embellished with trim around the eye sockets and you can clearly see through the eye sockets. Here again, if they were stuffed lion cub heads, you would not see through the eye sockets like a mask or appliqué.

Also note that top of most of the animal head appliqués are very straight and squared off at the top…. Again, how could someone stuff the animal head and yet flatten it but still maintain it’s shape, then square off the top, remove the eyes so you could see through the eyes like a mask, remove the lower jaw, and still hold it all together?

TARBICvS is correct about the one piece look… it is very possible that a flat appliqué was used or a small sculpture was created (a template) and linen was placed over it and molded as one piece.

A real lion cub’s head would not be that flat. Look at another example below, the face is far too flat to be a real cub’s head and look how squared off and straight the top is… all the examples I've seen just don't look real enough to have been a stuffed lion cub's head.



If you look at an actual lion cub… you can see how 3D the head is…





BTW: My boots are nearly complete... I chose to not go hunting with TARBICvS to kill lion cubs ( :wink: kidding, kidding, kidding) instead I'm casting lion head appliques and I filled in the lower jaw so it won't be present. I''ll remove them from the molds tonight... if all goes well, I'll have photos tomorrow.

[Tarbicus]

A real lion cub’s head would not be that flat.

Once you take the skull out you get a flat head with a recognisable face.

[Marcus Mummius]

A real lion cub’s head would not be that flat.

Once you take the skull out you get a flat head with a recognisable face.

My thoughts exactly.

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Once you take the skull out you get a flat head with a recognisable face.

True however, the faces look very emblished and appear very solid, almost metal like. They do not look (at least to my eyes) to be soft skulless pelts.

Also, if they were lion cub pelts with heads... why only three paws instead of four? Logically there would be a tail at the back and two sets paws on the sides but, that is not how the boots are... they all have three points of fabric, two at the sides and one in the back, with the head in the front.

BTW: Kitty says "Please Jim and Jeff... please just use appliques... I don't want to die!" :wink:

[Martin Moser]

Hm, I'm not much of a zoologist or so, but wouldn't a lion cub's head be way too large in the first place when you think of the dimensions vs the foot or shinbone as depicted on those statues? From that alone the only way I can imagine that this was done was either something artifical altogether or some other sort of cat (but those would look slightly different again, no?) ...

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Hm, I'm not much of a zoologist or so, but wouldn't a lion cub's head be way too large in the first place when you think of the dimensions vs the foot or shinbone as depicted on those statues?

Huh, I didn't take that into consideration. The North Carolina Zoo just had two new lion kitties.. strong and healthy and weighing 8.6 and 11 pounds at one month, their heads are the size of a human babies... far too large to be wrapped around a boot.

Also, those lion heads on the Roman statues look more like adut lions than cubs... which would obviously be impossible unless they were appliqués

After further research... Birth weight is between 226 to 453 grams (1/2 to 1 pound) but, think about the logistics as well, you’d have to get the cubs at birth (although the heads still might be too large) and a fertile lioness only gives birth about every two years, just to make a pair of boots.

Info: http://genomics.senescence.info/species ... p?id=02332


Rod Hackney, N.C. Zoo

It's a girl! And a girl! Both African lion cubs born July 17 at the North Carolina Zoo were determined to be females during their first physical exams conducted as they reached one month of age.


Dr. Barbara Wolfe, the zoo's senior veterinarian, said that the two youngsters seem to be healthy and doing well. Their weights are 8.6 and 11 pounds--a discrepancy in size that's common among lion litters, she said.

The two cubs represent the first birth of lions at the state zoo since 1983. The mother is a five-year old female who arrived at the N.C. Zoo from the Sedgewick County Zoo in Wichita, Kan., in November 2002. The first-time father is also five years old and arrived in Asheboro in March 2001 from the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, Ill.

Despite their progress, the cubs will remain in their off-exhibit holding area for several more weeks before being put on exhibit. Meanwhile, the father will remain on exhibit in the Lion Exhibit in the zoo's African region.

[Tarbicus]

They seem to grow a lot in one month. This is a truly newborn cub, which looks to fit the sizing perfectly.



Bear in mind we're assuming lion. Why not leopard, cheetah, tiger, or even a bog-standard domestic type cat?

[Celtic505]

why would they make a fake lion cub pelt, only to give it three fingers instead of four? Plus we are looking at statues, and perhaps the artist embellished the faces and skin on the boots in an attempt to make them look more ferocious and adult like, kinda like how they give caesar and crassus hair, but than again we can't be sure of this either..... :evil: AAGGGHHHH!!!!

[Celtic505]

Oh yeah, Tarbicus or anybody else who is down, I'm planning on going on a safari and hunting down some cubs, and if that fails than I'll kidnap my neighbors pregnant cat and steal one of the kittens. Whoever wants in lemme know ASAP, cuz I think this cats due any day now.

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

True… we can't be sure... like I said... Firstly, please keep in mind we’re interpreting a sculpture and it is possible for two intelligent people to come two completely different conclusions.

Anyways... using lion cubs for recreation is out, for me anyways. :wink:

BTW: The early statues of Caesar shows him with a more youthful look and more hair. The statues before his death show a rather sickly looking Caesar with far less hair. Vitellius’ statues show him grotesquely overweight, Pompey’s show every wrinkle, Antony’s show deep very hollow cheeks, Theodosius looks like he’s on his deathbed, etc… I tend to think most statues were pretty accurate.

Unless there was really a reason, such as Domitian demanding hair be added (mainly because he was obsessed and even wrote a book on balding) or Caligula… somehow I don’t see any artist making Caligula look anything less than perfect!