Quote:No, I just say that it was so far not possible to prove that the shield emblems in the ND are authentic. (i.e. to say "This unit had this shield design"). This was tried through cross-reference by Hoffmann and (mostly) M.P. Speidel. There are strong reasons to assume that they are just made up (Grigg), but were inspired by contemporary shield designs (My thought, but this will not be part of my paper)
OK, I can agree with that line of reasoning, but I like to approach this from the opposite side: it's equally impossible to prove that these designs were made up (either during Late Roman or Medieval times) for whatever reasons. We have indeed shield designs which are not represented in the ND (but then we only are shown those designs of field army troops, never the far numerous limitanei), but we know of several shield designs which indeed resemble some in the ND.
While I could imagine a reason for fantasy illustrations, the ND is in my opinion far too much of a purely bureaucratic document for fancy work like that. Medieval art work I reject immediately - look at De Rebus Bellicis for development of Roman art work under the influence of Medieval art, it's very different.
Quote:There are pages that only have red-and-white shields
Quote: I was studying an online article on Late Roman buckles here which seems to indicate a strong link between certain ND shield designs and motifs in Late Roman art - principally the Dolphin, the Dragon, the Lion and so on. There seems to be enough similarity to suggest in my mind that the ND shield designs were derived from authentic Late Roman military traditions and the possible origins of those units.
I agree to that!
Quote: If the designs are suspect then does that not throw the entire ND into doubt as an accurate record on the pictoral level, I wonder?
No, not necessarily. The other symbols could have been in the original MS. The problem is, we have no hard evidence for or against. We need either a contemporary MS (of the ND would be the best thing, but an illustrated 'brother' would also do) to study the images for originality and style. The trouble will always be that lack of an original, and the complete lack of knowledge we have how the images changed between 500 and 800.
Quote: If the ND is authentic (for example) then that would allow scholars to marry up the end product (the design) with a unit's origin (the possible buckle designs) rather than simply holding up the designs in a vacuum.
Only so if the correct design is shown for the correct unit. And even if the design looks original enough (and for some units, it does), we still cannot be sure if it's connected to the correct unit - there are differences between some versions of the ND.
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Quote:I wasn't aware of these emblems - are they pictured anywhere?
Since asking that question I've had a quick search, and found what appears to be a small sketch of the Arch of Constantine shield emblem, on P.21 of Osprey's Romano-Byzantine Armies (it's the middle design in the bottom row). I'd still be interested in seeing a better/original image though, if someone has one.
The design appears quite unique - an oval shield with a figure of winged victory standing on a globe and holding a wreath in the upper half, and a very ND-like twinned animal head crescent design in the lower half. Without the lower part it would strongly resemble the shields with eagles and figures of Hercules shown on the (roughly contemporary) Arch of Galerius. These shields possibly represent the bodyguard Herculiani and Joviani.
Since this design presumably relates to one of Constantine's legions from Gaul or Britain, might it be too much of a stretch to imagine that a legion called Victrix might have carried an image of Victory on its shield? Albeit such iconography would not have lasted too long into the Christian era...
Quote: OK, I can agree with that line of reasoning, but I like to approach this from the opposite side: it's equally impossible to prove that these designs were made up (either during Late Roman or Medieval times) for whatever reasons. We have indeed shield designs which are not represented in the ND (but then we only are shown those designs of field army troops, never the far numerous limitanei), but we know of several shield designs which indeed resemble some in the ND.
While I could imagine a reason for fantasy illustrations, the ND is in my opinion far too much of a purely bureaucratic document for fancy work like that. Medieval art work I reject immediately - look at De Rebus Bellicis for development of Roman art work under the influence of Medieval art, it's very different.
Quote:There are pages that only have red-and-white shields
Yes, you are absolutely correct. We have some shield designs in the ND that resemble somehow other shield designs from art. But that was never in question, I said the same thing above. What is not possible, is to produce a positive connection between a certain unit and a certain emblem.
I can also see "brown" and "yellow" and black, there... ^^
That is in this regard the only problematic page. All others are not like this in M2. In regard of the fact, that this is the only page of shields with a green background in the M2, we may have a page there, which was included into spirensis from an other original. Might have to do with the East-West problem in the ND.
Quote:The trouble will always be that lack of an original, and the complete lack of knowledge we have how the images changed between 500 and 800.
And even then it would be problematic, for we would have to find out how exactly the designs ended up in the ND, as I said above.
Nathan, I have a pic for you.
[attachment=1200]IMG_0457.jpg[/attachment]
Traditionally this design is supposed to be that of the cornuti, which were apparently playing an important role for Constantine (Ammianus)
I don´t think this argument can be made, though.
Thanks! That's a very clear image - from one of the pedestal bases, by the looks of things. What sort of strange animals are those heads supposed to be though? Dragons?
Quote:I don´t think this argument can be made, though.
Me neither, from what I've gathered in a brief flurry of reading. The desire to see cornuti and other supposedly 'barbaric' germanic types on the arch seems to be somewhat wishful thinking. In particular, this shield design clearly shows a very Roman winged victory - not, perhaps, the sort of iconography that an unRomanised germanic auxiliary type unit would use...
The placement of the figure is very similar to the eagle/Hercules figures on the Arch of Galerius shields though! A really fascinating combination of 3rd and 4th century designs.
caiusbeerquitius post=290884 Wrote:I don´t think this argument can be made, though.
Me neither, from what I've gathered in a brief flurry of reading. The desire to see cornuti and other supposedly 'barbaric' germanic types on the arch seems to be somewhat wishful thinking. In particular, this shield design clearly shows a very Roman winged victory - not, perhaps, the sort of iconography that an unRomanised germanic auxiliary type unit would use...
Leaving aside if this design can be pinned on any unit, I think it would be a mistake to go looking for 'un-Roman' symbolisms on non-Roman shields. If there's something clear from the ND shield designs (and I'm not ready to toss them away as a Medieval invention just yet) is that the overall design is not a mix of very Roman and very barbarian symbols. A lot of fantasy animals, but nothing what you wouldn't expect from a Roman background.
The only symbol that's really missing, one we know existed (for instance on the Constantius II missorium) is the Chi-Rho, which always occurres on some shield from the 4th c. onwards. This would also be a design that would figure prominently in the mind of any Medieval illustrator I think, which makes it even more typical that it is absent. Lots of imperial faces, winged victories even (no much, but still), but no XP. This symbol is shown on coins, but apparently not on shields. I'm not sure if this has been discussed in any article, my guess would be that the army was not really Christianized, and apart from the army of Constantine at the Milvian Bridge (and perhaps some personal guard units) did not fight under the Christian symbols just yet.
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Albeit such iconography would not have lasted too long into the Christian era...
