I don't know if there has been a previous thread on the fantastic anomalies of Trajan's Column or not, but I wonder how other RAT members "interpret" the supposed technical accuracy of the Column's artists. Were they Romans or did they come from Mars? Take a look at a partial segment of the column:
What do we have here? A cupid (Scythian) bow at the end of the 1st century AD? I don't think so. The improved composite bow with sayahs arrived in "western" regions before the defeat of Crassus by the Parthians, 150 years before this column was erected. Certainly, the Roxolani depicted on this fresco would have had the new "Hunnic" bow.
And here we have a Roxolanus carrying a sword not much bigger than a toothpick. In fact, the Roman cavalryman chasing him is equipped with a longer one. Wait a moment! What about the description (40 years previous to this) of long, two-handed, Roxolani swords given by Tacitus? What about the numerous and lengthy Chinese-influenced (or Chinese-built) swords found in archaeological sites? And finally we have the strangest rendering of all-- scales (or scale armor) actually growing biologically from the Roxolani warriors and their horses. Where did the Roxolani arrive from? Titan? Did they arrive from an alter universe on the back-side of a Black Hole?
So, here's my point? What can we believe is reality on Trajan's column, and what is fantasy? Did I spend $1,300 for a helmet style that never existed? In fact, the illustrations on Trajan's Column have no basis in historicity. They are the figments of an alter-world, a fantastical rendering of fictional material that has misdirected historians, archaeologists, and us re-enactors since day one. :whistle:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
I must admit I find the Roxolani bodysuits quite funny as well as the tiny bow. The sword doesn't fit the description of the Roxolani longsword by Tacitus, even the spatha of the pursuing Roman cavalryman is longer than the sword on the Roxolani. He is the only Roxolani rider with a sword as well and not a lance or contus in sight and I thought going by Tacitus's description that the Roxolan sword was wielded two-handed. To put Trajan's column in perspective here are a couple of different works depicting horsemen or archers. I always think the focus on the artists of the column was always the Romans, their skills at engineering and warfare, the Dacians and of course Trajan.
[attachment=10796]depictions.jpg[/attachment]
My apologies, I just realized I forgot to put descriptions for the 8 images above.
Depictions of horsemen armour and bows
1. Orlat bone plate of horse archer.
2. Syrian? or Bosporan foot archer on Trajan's Column.
3. Roxolani horse archer performing a Parthian shot.
4. Gravestone from Kerch, end of 1st century.
5. Artwork from silver vessel from Kosika.
6. Another depiction from Orlat bone plate.
7. Grafitto from Dura-Europos
8. Drawing from Tacht-i-Shangin temple of Oxus.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
I do not think that Rome had embedded war artists. The artists who created the column probably had seen Roman soldiers and some of their equipment, but they probably were entirely reliant on verbal descriptions of barbarians, except if they had happened to see a triumph or captives displayed in the arena - and in both these cases Roman stage managers may have dressed them in fantasy costumes.
The Sarmatians are fleeing, something easier to do without a barge-pole sized lance,
It could also be that there was this pile of Dacian armor, maybe other as well, lying there in heaps, and some artist in charge had models dress up and just pick pieces up from the pile, particularly if there were no other descriptions or veterans hanging around.
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
I think Trajans Column is an Artists impression (which I think can be proven) and without corroborating evidence should be taken with a pinch of salt, on the other hand the artist may well have been at all these events and witnessed it personally and had an intimate knowledge of arms and armour and barbarian tribes quite apart from his own army .... perhaps what's more likely is he/she :-) was directed to create something to amaze on a specific theme using second hand descriptions and as directed by his employer..... within a budget... "here we need to have a group of barbaric heavily armed mounted warriors running away"and" make the scales larger I can't see them/you'll never complete them in time" etc......
I don't discount artistic impressions, I take them as unproven sources.... until proven, though I have no problem with unproven artistic sources being used... providing its reasonable.
Ivor
"And the four bare walls stand on the seashore. a wreck a skeleton a monument of that instability and vicissitude to which all things human are subject. Not a dwelling within sight, and the farm labourer, and curious traveller, are the only persons that ever visit the scene where once so many thousands were congregated." T.Lewin 1867
Quote:Ribbed helmets are supported by Archaeological evidence though. I believe there are one or two from Hunnic times.
Ribbed helmets? Do you mean like mine, which is a "banded helmet"? I think Richard and Urselius have the right idea: that the artist-carvers had no clue as to what a Roxolanus looked like, dressed a couple of guys in captured "costume" and winged it. Ivor has come to the same conclusion; it's an Artistic Impression. One author explaining the illustrations of the Column estimated the barbarian's sword was 70cm long, only 30 to 50cm short of the real thing. Evidently, the "fleeing" Roxolani didn't drop any swords in their cowardly retreat. OR-- and this is a possibility (albeit incredibly plausible) that the rider was an 8-foot giant. As a rule, steppe barbarians were taller than Romans (with the exception of Saul), but there IS a height limit. :dizzy:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Quote:there was this pile of Dacian armor, maybe other as well, lying there in heaps
Most probably there was. Large amounts of spolia would likely have been brought back to Rome and displayed in the triumphal parade at the end of the wars. I would guess that the artists of the column may have seen Sarmatian armour and helmets, but (especially in the case of the horse armour) may not have seen it being worn or used.
Radu Oltean's book - Dacia, The Roman Wars, Volume 1 - is well worth purchasing, Alanus. It contextualises the Column within the domain of Imperial propaganda and shows how its sculptures are used to reinforce a Roman versus Barbarian ideology. As it was designed by Apollodorus of Damascus who also accompanied the Emperor on his campaigns into Dacia, I expect that most of the sculptures reflect a mix of observed armour and weapons coded into a mythology designed to both tell a narrative and also reinforce Imperial propaganda. For example, several scenes show Dacians fighting unarmoured when it was know that many were indeed armoured. The Sarmatian horsemen seem to me to be carved authentically but in exaggerated poses, hence the scale and sword 'anomalies'.
Spolia was extensive and the whole of Trajan's Forum was lavishly decorated in motifs and statues designed to reinforce the Imperial agenda. The Column was merely one aspect. Apollodorus, I suspect, would want to tread a fine line between the reality of events and their mythology as conceived by Trajan. Dacia armour and weapons are represented as spoils in other sections and are sufficiently accurate (it seems) to me not to doubt the Sarmatian armour/weapons - merely their representations - including your helmet.
I can understand some of the mistakes but I do wonder if except for a few helmets most of the Roxolani armour and swords were souvenired by the Roman troops and that the artists did their work from eyewitness descriptions. If for example the artisan is working off descriptions then for artistic reasons or had no military background which is pretty likely, maybe he would mistake a suit of armour and chaps as a full body suit. Any Roxolan two handed swords would also probably be souvenired by troops and never make their way to Rome or possibly the artist saw a broken sword as the hilt of the sword seems pretty accurate for a Roxolani sword as it seems to be up around his chest area but the length seems wrong so maybe artist had to guess its length. Its the horse armour that gets me as though with each leg covered but I suppose that could be misinterpreted as well.
I have an artist's impression of a Scythian warrior wearing a similar sort of outfit to the Roxolani where the rider has chaps as well.
[attachment=10798]scythpicchaps.jpg[/attachment]
Also I scanned in a small section of a drawing from an excellent book for sale at Karwansaray called Dacia: The Roman Wars Volume 1 which is written and illustrated by Radu Oltean. It is only a section of the complete image of the charge of Roxolani so I hope I am not breaking any copyright restrictions but it depicts how a Roxolani warrior's horse was probably covered and not head to foot like the column and his armour is found at the base of the column as well.
[attachment=10799]horsearmour.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=10800]Roxaarmour.jpg[/attachment]
The image below is same as Alanus original but higher resolution so it shows a bit more detail of helmets and footwear.
[attachment=10801]roxolandetail.jpg[/attachment]
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Quote: I have an artist's impression of a Scythian warrior wearing a similar sort of outfit to the Roxolani where the rider has chaps as well.
[..]
it depicts how a Roxolani warrior's horse was probably covered and not head to foot like the column and his armour is found at the base of the column as well.
Michael Kerr
Although I love both artists' work, I am wondering if you can use this as a source. I mean, I think you have the chicken and the egg switched around - I think the artists work with ancient art as a source of inspiration. Angus McBrides Scythian is perhaps even based on Trajan's Column and not on real Scythian finds? I'm not sure how his solution of the scale armour worked (but that was not always his concern, more important was it looked right). The scales in my opinion are too large to make this as loose-fitting as it looks, and I doubt this is based on a find? But I can be wrong.
Oltean's horse armour I'm more sure of - members here who work with horse armour tell me that this is too stiff to allow the horse any neck movement. It all appears to be light and flapping about, but the combination of thick leather and scales just does not work that way.
Of course even if both artist' impressions are correct, that still does not add anything to the points made here - the horses legs are still covered in scales, and so far I have never found or heard any explanation how that would be possible!
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Of course even if both artist' impressions are correct, that still does not add anything to the points made here - the horses legs are still covered in scales, and so far I have never found or heard any explanation how that would be possible!
well Robert why you really don't know, the Sarmatians used to feed their horses with Iron and Fish, actually when they saw the results they just started doing the same thing as well
but letting joke aside, is definitely weird as other things on the Trajans Column as well, is still what we have and we need to make use of it
Hi Robert, I was not using the drawings as sources just comparisons and I am pretty sure that they are probably not correct. The Roxolani images on the column are just strange and I am sure you are right about the horse armour I just wonder how the horses got trousers on the column, that is all. I have quite a few artist's impressions and I know that they are just that "impressions". The artists always seem to get a lot of things wrong. Maybe the riders were wearing chaps and that artist's impression of the Scythian rider was the closest I could find to the image on the column with the scale going all the way down the legs to their boots. I think McBride may have based it on a piece of 6th Century BC Scythian scale armour from the Alexandrovka kurgan.
There is a reconstruction drawing of it in Timothy Dawson's book “Armour Never Wearies". Did Parthian cataphracts wear armour from head to foot? Because I don't think any 2nd century Sarmatian rider probably had bodysuit-like armour, although I am sure some of the wealthiest wore heavy armour similar to the suits depicted on the column unless they were meant to be chaps. :-) :-)
Sounds like you have Oltean's book but some of his other Roxolani armour depictions or impressions are nothing like those featured in the Roxolani retreat on the column. Anyway we will never know where the original artists got their ideas or orders from as the column above everything was meant to be a political statement albeit an artistic statement at that.
[attachment=10808]Roxarmou2r.jpg[/attachment]
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Quote:What about the description (40 years previous to this) of long, two-handed, Roxolani swords given by Tacitus?
Straying somewhat off-topic, how certain are we of this? The relevant text is Hist. 1. 79:
neque conti neque gladii, quos praelongos utraque manu regunt, usui
'. . . by use of neither lance nor sword, which (being) very long they wield with both hands . . . '
It has been argued that this refers to the lances, rather than the swords. I am inclined to think that it refers to both. However, wielding a two-handed sword on horseback seems a difficult task. Tacitus states that none were as cowardly as the Sarmatians when fighting on foot, although they were almost invincible when mounted. I wonder whether the two-handed sword (if that is what it was) was primarily a defensive weapon used to keep the enemy at bay, should the rider be unhorsed. What do others think?
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
I tend to agree with you about using two hands to use both contus and sword and unfortunately I know of no images from antiquity showing the use of the sword with two hands. However looking at the Orlat battle plaques there is a depiction of two warriors' swords and although one is wielding his with one hand the length of the sword hilt indicates to me at teast that when necessary two handed use of the sword was practiced for maximum force in certain cases. As to balance, I don't think that really worried nomadic horsemen as they learnt to ride from childhood firstly on the backs of sheep and then as they grew, horses and to think that they had to use a two handed contus while charging then if necessary to use bow and arrow accurately while manoeuvring around on a horse, sometimes having to perform the Parthian shot so I don't think using a sword with two hands would be a major problem unless they missed their target of course. But I should add that I am not an experienced horseman. Orlat plaque below. Note the length of the sword hilts. I like the way Tacitus refers to the Roxolani as cowardly when unhorsed but conditions didn't suit them that day with slippery, wet & slushy conditions and the heavy armour as well, so trying to swing a rather large sword would have tired them quickly & made them easy meat for the lighter Roman infantrymen that day. Funny how Tacitus says that all of the Roxolani were killed (9000 he said I think) yet the Romans had to send another army the following year to fight them again which indicates that the Romans did not meet the whole force. So maybe the Romans just met a small force of about 900 heavy horsemen crossing back over the Danube with their loot and with no light cavalry support. Just saying. :?
.... perhaps what's more likely is he/she :-) was directed to create something to amaze on a specific theme using second hand descriptions and as directed by his employer..... within a budget... "here we need to have a group of barbaric heavily armed mounted warriors running away"and" make the scales larger I can't see them/you'll never complete them in time" etc...... 
