Seville exhibition

[Proximus]

Brian, I understand your point of view, but I must say I think the reaction against segmentata in an area bc is generated by the abuse we have all seen with segmentata here, segmentata there, and then, Caesar had segmentata, and there, romans had segmentata against Hanibal ( ! ), and there we can see Romulus and Remus with Segmentata...

We see segmentata everywhere in the vulgarisation of history... I think the "tunel vision" as you say is just a reaction against that.

The answer is just in the middle !

[Gregg]

I was going to try to hazard a guess based on the shields, but having seen Julio's photos I'd have to hesitate. These are either highly stylized depictions of shields or perhaps some are simply damaged. As it is, I can possibly identify the standard curved legionary scutum (flat top and bottom), at least one round shield, and a few hexagonal shields, which I believe are usually considered cavalry shields and sometimes are associated with the Praetorians.

Did anyone notice what looked like very large cheek pieces on at least one helmet? Strange, considering typical roman sculptural convention.

Having looked over Julio's photos, my first impression (probably wrong) is that we may be looking at a gladiatorial sea battle in a flooded arena. If nothing else, it would explain why we seem to be seeing Roman fighting Roman.

Gregg

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Thanks for the pictures Julio!. Seems to be my assumption was correct on the ship superstructure.

I don't think any one would suggest the seg was around in Hannibals times, but Caesar is not too great a stretch. But there is little in the way of art to back that up really. Or armour finds. In fact, are there any armour finds of any kind at all from the late republic/Ceasarian era? Seems they were all to busy using it, instead of losing it during this time period.

[MeinPanzer]

Thanks very much the pictures, Julio.

So, it is indeed a mix of segmentata and musculata and, if some of the texture which is visible on some of the cuirasses is original, probably hamata as well. What strikes me most about the relief is the seeming carelessness with which the artist depicted the scuta. They are shown with all sorts of odd shapes, including a few that appear to be triangular. Another surprising detail is the lone clipeus.

One thing that can be said for sure from these pictures is that many of the helmets are fully classicized - they all appear to be debased Hellenistic-style helmets - while the others are too generic to be identified. All in all, this relief unfortunately doesn't seem to be very reflective of reality.

[Gregg]

I still have a hard time with the idea that this frieze depicts Roman soldiers fighting each other. Most of Rome’s history was filled with civil wars and civil insurrections, and yet, for a people obsessed with commemorating military victories, I can’t think of a single depiction of Romans fighting Romans (at least, not until the Arch of Constantine). The Romans did not advertise or commemorate victories over other Romans, as they saw Civil Wars as being disgraceful. Augustus was granted Triumphal honors for his victories over Cleopatra and the Egyptians, not Antony, and I believe that if this were a monument to Actium it would attempt to make a clear distinction between Roman and Egyptian troops. The soldiers depicted are, however, essentially indistinguishable.

Maybe it does depict a Naumachia, a Roman gladiatorial sea battle. The Naumachia were incredibly expensive, lavish spectacles, and pretty much exactly what you’d expect an emperor to want to commemorate.

Also, if you look at the far right end of the frieze, you’ll notice a large column behind the ships. A column isn’t something you’d expect in the middle of the ocean, but it may be an indication that the battle depicted was being fought in an artificial lake or stadium.

Gregg

[jkaler48]

The wide variety of interesting shield shapes may be an indication of a
a Naval Gladiatorial context. Or perhaps it could depict an combat against pirates.

[richsc]

Some of the helmets bear strong resemblances to those from the buried and reliefs recovered earlier in 2008 of the gladiators.

[Theodosius the Great]

Brian, I thought my statement about the datation was fairly neutral but maybe I came off a bit negative. Maybe I should have said 'The datation may indeed prove the use of segs in the late Republic'. Earlier I said I believed the reliefs were contemporary with the battle of Actium, so I agree with you and Byron You raised a good point about the Kalkriese finds. Having said all that, I wonder if the segs are over-represented on the reliefs.

Maybe it does depict a Naumachia, a Roman gladiatorial sea battle. The Naumachia were incredibly expensive, lavish spectacles, and pretty much exactly what you’d expect an emperor to want to commemorate.

A very interesting suggestion. I think Claudius was the only one to stage such an event. But are there any examples of gladiatorial combat being commerated in artwork lavishly as these reliefs or otherwise ? (Graffiti doesn't count, BTW :wink: ) If not, then I'm highly skeptical about the possibility. Yes, I know about mosaics showing gladiators but those are found in private houses, IIRC. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Also, if you look at the far right end of the frieze, you’ll notice a large column behind the ships. A column isn’t something you’d expect in the middle of the ocean, but it may be an indication that the battle depicted was being fought in an artificial lake or stadium.

Most sea battles were fought not far from shore. The column could represent Actium for all we know.

I still have a hard time with the idea that this frieze depicts Roman soldiers fighting each other. Most of Rome’s history was filled with civil wars and civil insurrections, and yet, for a people obsessed with commemorating military victories, I can’t think of a single depiction of Romans fighting Romans (at least, not until the Arch of Constantine). The Romans did not advertise or commemorate victories over other Romans, as they saw Civil Wars as being disgraceful.

Yes, I mentioned this old theory about Romans being adverse to celebrate civil war victories (at least unambiguously). But I don't know what that theory is based on. Simple lack of evidence ? A very poor basis I would say. Had Caesar lost the civil war I'm not so sure the victors would not have portrayed it as a victory against tyranny and treason. Afterall, he did start the war and for no good reason.

I believe that if this were a monument to Actium it would attempt to make a clear distinction between Roman and Egyptian troops.

Which is why I suggested it may not portray Actium at all, but rather Naulochus (36 BC). Though it was a continuation of the first civil war against the Caesarians it was an easier victory to celebrate. Augustan propaganda at the time vilified Sextus Pompeius as a pirate who caused food shortages in Rome by blockading shipping lines.

I have an alternate theory too :
The reliefs do show Actium and do not contradict Augustan propaganda since it may have been understood by everyone that the Egyptian armies had long been imitating Roman legionary organization. Hence, no stylistic distinction between the two sides was necessary.

Or perhaps it could depict an combat against pirates.

Again, which would make the battle of Naulochus a prime candidate, IMO.

~Theo

[SigniferOne]

Thanks Julio, great pics!

Does someone know who this strange horse-person is, jumping off the ship??




The carving skill might date the frieze to the 1st century AD, but the carving proportions clearly indicate a provincial/non-classical artistic canon, which seems to have been very typical of gladiatorial depictions. There's a famous imperial frieze, the name of which escapes me, which depicts a ship and soldiers stretched out in a realistic and proportional fashion.