09-16-2009, 07:05 AM
Dear Mr. D'Amato,
Thank you for your further reply.
I believe that we will continue to disagree on the degree of trust to be placed in artistic depictions.
To me the metal finds we have are consistent all over the Empire to a degree which would exclude the possibility of widely different designs even if artists chose to depict them. They may have done so for many reasons cited above. Also I have no problem with assuming that artists would be prepared to mix "realistic" and "fantastic (i.e. normally stylized rather than completely inventend) which you appear to find unlikely. To illustrate this point: Many World War I memorials (and also art from the Third Reich) in Germany show German soldiers in photorealistic Stahlhelm, trouser, boots but with naked chests and wielding swords and kite shields. Neither the artists nor the audience had a problem with this as the "shield" in particular conveys an allegorical message which could not be conveyed by depicting a rifle.
However the foregoing argument would not exclude that designs known to have been made in non-metallic materials such as the tube-and-yoke (fka linothorax) or designs known to have existed but not found in metal (such as the depictions you identify as thoracomachoi) were made in other materials. Neither would it exclude that a design known to have been executed in metal could also have been executed in leather or other non-metallic materials. However, on this point I would be very cautious because, not denying the defensive quality of leather, metal and leather are different kinds of material and therefore a design for a metal piece of armour may not make sense for a non-metallic piece of armour. Based on this assumption, it is not unprobable that musculatae and also the "jerkins" depicted on Trajan' column may have been executed in metal AND in leather (although on Trajan's column it would be interesting to review further whether the jerkins without incisions denoting mail are evenly spread over the picture or limited to the background which could imply that they were simply a consequence of the artists' laziness). Your reconstruction of the leather patchwork leggings and segmentata on the other hand appear problematic to me under that premise. To make your segmentata work at all, you had to add a leather "background" which is not clearly shown on the relief. Actually the relief would appear to show the individual pieces of the armour more or less unconnected to each other. Assuming that the background is correct, why would a suit of armour have been designed which adds another layer of strips on top of that first piece of armour and has unprotected fastenings on the front (whereas metal armour particularly enhanced protection at the fastening point by shoulder flaps, later metal breast plates and the overlap in the joints of the segmentata). Why would all joints of the armour be connected with buttons which surely will be awkward to open and close on leather of any reasonable thickness? The tube-and-yoke (fka linothorax) design with its shoulder flaps (which we know to have been widely used by the Romans) provides a simple and workable solution for semi-rigid non-metallic armour, the thoracomachos/jerkin design (which we know to have been widely used by the Romans) provides a simple and workable solution for "soft" non-metallic armour. Any alternative design or design variant wil lhave to measured against the simplicity and effectiveness of those designs. The segmentata design appears at best overdesigned (i.e. not simple) and at worst unworkable for this type of material, not even mentioning your "loin cloth" threaded through the armour. Therefore it appears much less likely to me that this design would have been executed in leather in any way but in particular not in the way you show (however, given my luck, some RATer will probably reconstruct it and find out that it is superior to any other form of armour).
However, you may still be able to convince me of your position if you can actually propose a workable leather reconstruction of the Amendola cap/helmet. Just in case somebody is unclear to what helmet we are referring, here is a link:
[url:2r0fkogu]http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sarcofago_amendola.jpg[/url]
Look at the guy with the reinforced smurf cap.
On the issue of leather helmets, as said, contrary to many other RATers I am perfectly prepared to accept that there may have been leather armour and even helmets in use in the Roman army at certain periods, in fact, this is even likely. An often overlooked piece of evidence in this regard are the stone models for Hellenistic helmets and cheek pieces found in Egypt. They are highly decorated which appears to make sense only if they were used to shrink leather (rather than beat bronze sheet).
I would be very interested in a picture of the bowl you used for the reconstruction of the Portonaccio helmet. May I ask whether it would be possible to post it here?
Thank you for your further reply.
I believe that we will continue to disagree on the degree of trust to be placed in artistic depictions.
To me the metal finds we have are consistent all over the Empire to a degree which would exclude the possibility of widely different designs even if artists chose to depict them. They may have done so for many reasons cited above. Also I have no problem with assuming that artists would be prepared to mix "realistic" and "fantastic (i.e. normally stylized rather than completely inventend) which you appear to find unlikely. To illustrate this point: Many World War I memorials (and also art from the Third Reich) in Germany show German soldiers in photorealistic Stahlhelm, trouser, boots but with naked chests and wielding swords and kite shields. Neither the artists nor the audience had a problem with this as the "shield" in particular conveys an allegorical message which could not be conveyed by depicting a rifle.
However the foregoing argument would not exclude that designs known to have been made in non-metallic materials such as the tube-and-yoke (fka linothorax) or designs known to have existed but not found in metal (such as the depictions you identify as thoracomachoi) were made in other materials. Neither would it exclude that a design known to have been executed in metal could also have been executed in leather or other non-metallic materials. However, on this point I would be very cautious because, not denying the defensive quality of leather, metal and leather are different kinds of material and therefore a design for a metal piece of armour may not make sense for a non-metallic piece of armour. Based on this assumption, it is not unprobable that musculatae and also the "jerkins" depicted on Trajan' column may have been executed in metal AND in leather (although on Trajan's column it would be interesting to review further whether the jerkins without incisions denoting mail are evenly spread over the picture or limited to the background which could imply that they were simply a consequence of the artists' laziness). Your reconstruction of the leather patchwork leggings and segmentata on the other hand appear problematic to me under that premise. To make your segmentata work at all, you had to add a leather "background" which is not clearly shown on the relief. Actually the relief would appear to show the individual pieces of the armour more or less unconnected to each other. Assuming that the background is correct, why would a suit of armour have been designed which adds another layer of strips on top of that first piece of armour and has unprotected fastenings on the front (whereas metal armour particularly enhanced protection at the fastening point by shoulder flaps, later metal breast plates and the overlap in the joints of the segmentata). Why would all joints of the armour be connected with buttons which surely will be awkward to open and close on leather of any reasonable thickness? The tube-and-yoke (fka linothorax) design with its shoulder flaps (which we know to have been widely used by the Romans) provides a simple and workable solution for semi-rigid non-metallic armour, the thoracomachos/jerkin design (which we know to have been widely used by the Romans) provides a simple and workable solution for "soft" non-metallic armour. Any alternative design or design variant wil lhave to measured against the simplicity and effectiveness of those designs. The segmentata design appears at best overdesigned (i.e. not simple) and at worst unworkable for this type of material, not even mentioning your "loin cloth" threaded through the armour. Therefore it appears much less likely to me that this design would have been executed in leather in any way but in particular not in the way you show (however, given my luck, some RATer will probably reconstruct it and find out that it is superior to any other form of armour).
However, you may still be able to convince me of your position if you can actually propose a workable leather reconstruction of the Amendola cap/helmet. Just in case somebody is unclear to what helmet we are referring, here is a link:
[url:2r0fkogu]http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sarcofago_amendola.jpg[/url]
Look at the guy with the reinforced smurf cap.
On the issue of leather helmets, as said, contrary to many other RATers I am perfectly prepared to accept that there may have been leather armour and even helmets in use in the Roman army at certain periods, in fact, this is even likely. An often overlooked piece of evidence in this regard are the stone models for Hellenistic helmets and cheek pieces found in Egypt. They are highly decorated which appears to make sense only if they were used to shrink leather (rather than beat bronze sheet).
I would be very interested in a picture of the bowl you used for the reconstruction of the Portonaccio helmet. May I ask whether it would be possible to post it here?
Regards,
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
