04-05-2012, 05:50 PM
First about the Via Latina image:
Matt wrote;
[quote] Robert, I remember the conversation and I still think that the Via Latina painting shows a man in a decorated tunic, not a mail shirt. You say artistic convention, I say it's got long sleeves that are tight at the cuff and that it seems to hang in drapes like fabric, not mail (although the Chiaramoti figures exhibit the same features and that's definately armour). It's impossible to tell what the diagonal white line across the figure represents. It seems to pass over the belt and terminate some distance below it but passes under the confusing black deocration/detail on the figures chest. Could be a sam brown, could be an attempt to depict a 3rd century baldric. I can't tell, and neither can anyone else.[/quote]
I guess one could explain anything away with a personal view on evidence. I would say this:
a) dots like these are a well-known technique in art to show a mail shirt. There is no compelling reason to deviate from such an interpretation in this case. In fact, it’s what all the experts think, and I’ve yet to see other interpretations.
b) a dotted tunic would be something new in late Roman tunic fashion. Talk about a lone piece of evidence – or can you come up with more dotted tunics?
Concluding, I see no reason to go against the current artistic evidence for either the representation of mail, or late Roman tunic fashion.
[quote] Perhaps it is my eyesight, but I seem to be seeing on the Via Latina figure both a long scabbard on the right and a shorter scabbard on the left, with a round chape. The latter scabbard appears to be connected to the lighter coloured diagonal strap (for want of a better descriptive term). I seem to be seeing two diagonal straps crossing on the chest. One of these, as I said, appears to be carrying the shorter scabbard whilst the other could be either a guige strap to support the shield or a strap to suspend the sword from. Of these two options the sword suspension option seem more likely, as the other strap passes over it, which would not be practical for a guige strap. Of course, it may just have been de rigeur to wear a diagonal strap across the body for reasons we would not understand and that the sword isto be understood to be suspended from the waist belt.
[quote="Crispvs" post=310367] Of course, the artist may not have been used to depicting soldiers. The sword and shield are both far too small (although this depiction is far from unique in that respect) and the helmet looks a little odd. It could be that he was trying to depict armour but was more used to depicting civilian clothing so used his usual depictional methods and then tried to use patterning to mark it out as armour, or then again i could be that it was always supposed to depict a tunic rather than mail and that some clothing may have been far more decorated than we are usually led to suppose. [/quote] The patterning of the mail as dots is (as remarked above) very distinctive of mail.
The usual ‘simplification’ that we see in art could be at work here – the soldier is recognizable enough, the helmet type a clear Intercisa IV, the scutum (though small) quite acceptable for the period. I have no doubt that the artist knew what a soldier looked like, and I think his model wore a long coat of mail.
[quote] I don't really think we can draw any definite conclusions from the figure.[/quote]I would like to see a better image of this one, all we have so far is the same image reproduced over and over. But agreed, I would not use it to argue for semispathae or small scuta.
Matt wrote;
[quote] Robert, I remember the conversation and I still think that the Via Latina painting shows a man in a decorated tunic, not a mail shirt. You say artistic convention, I say it's got long sleeves that are tight at the cuff and that it seems to hang in drapes like fabric, not mail (although the Chiaramoti figures exhibit the same features and that's definately armour). It's impossible to tell what the diagonal white line across the figure represents. It seems to pass over the belt and terminate some distance below it but passes under the confusing black deocration/detail on the figures chest. Could be a sam brown, could be an attempt to depict a 3rd century baldric. I can't tell, and neither can anyone else.[/quote]
I guess one could explain anything away with a personal view on evidence. I would say this:
a) dots like these are a well-known technique in art to show a mail shirt. There is no compelling reason to deviate from such an interpretation in this case. In fact, it’s what all the experts think, and I’ve yet to see other interpretations.
b) a dotted tunic would be something new in late Roman tunic fashion. Talk about a lone piece of evidence – or can you come up with more dotted tunics?
Concluding, I see no reason to go against the current artistic evidence for either the representation of mail, or late Roman tunic fashion.
[quote] Perhaps it is my eyesight, but I seem to be seeing on the Via Latina figure both a long scabbard on the right and a shorter scabbard on the left, with a round chape. The latter scabbard appears to be connected to the lighter coloured diagonal strap (for want of a better descriptive term). I seem to be seeing two diagonal straps crossing on the chest. One of these, as I said, appears to be carrying the shorter scabbard whilst the other could be either a guige strap to support the shield or a strap to suspend the sword from. Of these two options the sword suspension option seem more likely, as the other strap passes over it, which would not be practical for a guige strap. Of course, it may just have been de rigeur to wear a diagonal strap across the body for reasons we would not understand and that the sword isto be understood to be suspended from the waist belt.
[quote="Crispvs" post=310367] Of course, the artist may not have been used to depicting soldiers. The sword and shield are both far too small (although this depiction is far from unique in that respect) and the helmet looks a little odd. It could be that he was trying to depict armour but was more used to depicting civilian clothing so used his usual depictional methods and then tried to use patterning to mark it out as armour, or then again i could be that it was always supposed to depict a tunic rather than mail and that some clothing may have been far more decorated than we are usually led to suppose. [/quote] The patterning of the mail as dots is (as remarked above) very distinctive of mail.
The usual ‘simplification’ that we see in art could be at work here – the soldier is recognizable enough, the helmet type a clear Intercisa IV, the scutum (though small) quite acceptable for the period. I have no doubt that the artist knew what a soldier looked like, and I think his model wore a long coat of mail.
[quote] I don't really think we can draw any definite conclusions from the figure.[/quote]I would like to see a better image of this one, all we have so far is the same image reproduced over and over. But agreed, I would not use it to argue for semispathae or small scuta.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
