Late Roman Shoulder Pauldrons

[Sextus Saturninus]

For me, the Amazonarchy mosaic clearly shows what can only be a shoulder guard. It is colored the same as the cuirass and helmet, and has scalloping. What else can it be? Don't try to tell me it is an Orbiculi on a Coptic tunic...

[Renatus]

We have already been down the "Trajan's Column Road" on another thread. And the column can only be perceived as a combination of reality and fantasy within a single and large unit. Whether or not early pauldrons existed seems to be subjective

I agree that Trajan's Column has to be used with caution but, nevertheless, I would like to see what Mark is interpreting as pauldrons on it.

[Dan Howard]

I don't know how can you tell from literally 40 pieces of pebbles not even reaching to the wrist, that it is mail. Also, wearing mail just for the protection of 3/4 of your arm is quite stupid.

It was a common sleeve length in the Middle Ages. I fail to see how 3/4 length sleeves are any more stupid than 1/2 length or no sleeves at all. FWIW the tailoring required for full-length mail sleeves is very complicated.

[Graham Sumner]

Hi

As usual while looking for pictures of a cornu (see my other thread) I found the following picture.

Unfortunately the picture caption and credit offer little help as to where it is but it looks like one of those earlier sculptures reused in the arch of Constantine. In which case the shoulder defences are not something introduced in the third century but if we believe the sculpture, something that was around much earlier or another case of the dreaded artistic convention!

[Sextus Saturninus]

We know some Archaic hoplites had a should guards for their sword arms, so if Romans copied Hellenistic items ( like muscle cuirasses ) why could they not also copy shoulder guards? Just my opinion though.

[Damien]

I agree with Renatus.

I don't understand the point of view of Márk György Kis. I don't see why the example of Geneva Missorium would contradict the existence of this particular plate shoulders protections, because they would not be visible on this representational source. They do not appear on many more illustrations.

I don't assert that every Thorax of the late Roman Empire possess protections of shoulders as these but that they are present on certain precise sources.

On the other hand, it is significant that these representations popularize in the late roman time.

I believe to have a good book on the trajane column (G. Deyperot, "Les légions romaines en campagne: la colonne tajane", Edition Errance. 2008). I don't see where you noticed similar plate shoulders protections to those that i evoke in the sources that i quoted.

Seriously, you consider that the color of the mosaics tessel about which we speak could be a representation of leather color? With all that we know about the golden silver covering of late roman helmets, you think conceivable that the same yellow used on the helmet and the armor can be an illustration of leather material? I imagine that it is here a little bit puffing rhetoric.

The same goes for the example of Strategikon, the literary sources describe very rarely armaments and armors and never in detail. What it can well prove? The Ripuari Law tells us what is the price of good armor, she don't says nothing about this armor. It also proves nothing too.

Thank you Graham for the panel which you post here. Very interesting, but it's a pity that we do not know the origin of the monument. Not to mention stylization of the source, the panel could have been restored as well in the XVIIth - XVIIIth century.

[M. Val. Naso]

Ok, long post incoming:

The Trajan Column argument is revoked, light and shadows tricked me.

Damian:

You did not understand my color reference. The pteryges are the same color as the helmet, armor and 'pauldron'. So, if we lend so much credibility to highly archaising mosaics now, and we declare 40 pebbles to be a mail sleeve (which I accept, let it be mail), then we must assume credibility of colors. So based on the same color, it must be from the same material. I'll give you the opportunity to choose: are those pteryges made of some kind of metal (since helmet and armor is made of the same color as well), or are the helmet and armor made of leather (since they share color with pteryges)?

My main argument against the pauldrons, is that look around on highly detailed representations. You can find the same pauldron-like shapes. But when you see armor pattern on the thorax, you always see the pattern on the shoulder parts as well. Scale or mail. And this is true for the 6-7th centuries as well. Instead of speculating a new type of armor, a much simpler explanation is that most representations lack the details. I have provided 6-7th c. representations of detailed pauldrons, they all show armor pattern. If this was an established thing by that time, why don't we have pauldrons? Why do we have the exact same form, only with pattern? Why don't we have this pattern on earlier ones? My answer is: lack of detail. Because when detail is actually there, you can see, that it is just a sleeve.

We have no literary evidence of this piece in late antiquity and early medieval times, but when it actually surfaces in depictions, in 10th c. Byzantium, we start to see it in the texts as well.

You can not expect me to believe, that on the Alter Do Chao mosaic, with soldiers, who sport Greek hoplite equipment and troops are dressed in stereotypic Persian dress, the presence of a pauldron-like piece is evidence.

I can see nothing valuable on the Nabeul mosaics, please provide pictures, also for the Red Sea crossing fresco.

On the Dura fresco, you can only see the pauldron on the left side figure, whereas you see the same pauldron forms on the figures standing in the back, and the pauldrons all have pattern. This gives me the idea of symbolizing an officer, rather than pauldrons. They are the same form, but mostly they have pattern.

We've dicussed the Amazonomachy. As for Low Ham, that clearly seems like a kind of a subarmalis, not armor. At least the pattern suggests this.

Renatus:

I've cited the Missorium, since it represents elite bodyguards and the Emperor, with no actual pauldrons. Shouldn't they be there on a highly prized artifact? (I've seen an old photo before the restoration, archeologists managed to scrape off a good deal of valuable forms as well.)

And the mail/scale pauldrons clearly form a single form with the torso, how can you interpret it as a separate piece?

[Renatus]

I can see nothing valuable on the Nabeul mosaics, please provide pictures

It is for Damien to make his own case but he may be thinking of this:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Classics/r...mage63.htm

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The "Bra"/Ptyruges could be gilded leather... we have shoes with gilding on them from Egypt dating to the 5th century AD...

Not saying it is, just throwing that out there.

[Thomas V.]

Are those pteryges made of some kind of metal (since helmet and armor is made of the same color as well), or are the helmet and armor made of leather (since they share color with pteryges)?

The Pteryges could be gilded leather...

In my opinion it isn't far-fetched to consider the "roundish" pteryges as being made of metal. Roman muscle cuirass statues seem to have pin and barrel hinges between the bottom edge of the cuirass and the two upper pteryx layers. The hinges indicate a rigid material. According to archaeological evidence, the rigid material was (gilded) bronze (e.g. Cueva del Jarro, Kemnitz grave 622). The Kerch matrix is another indicator for musle cuirass pteryges beeing made of metal.

[Damien]

To Márk György Kis: I understand better what you want to say concerning the Amazonomachy mosaic. Indeed, it is necessary me to correct. Not living very far from Paris, I had the opportunity to go in Louvre to see and to photograph this mosaic. Contrary to said, Ptéruges is not the same color as the armor but mainly constituted by white and red tessels which give a pinkish aspect to these. There is many yellow tesselles, but it is not relevant from the set. Here my misunderstand when you assert that ptèruges is of the same color as the cuirass. I can tell you that the contrast is real.

Idem to the mention of Geneva plate. I don't understand why you quote this source when the armors of the imperial guard around Valentinian dont' appears...

Thanks Renatus to the Nabeul Mosaic link. I am willing to admit that this mosaic, stemming from a well known literary theme (scene of Iliade) is borrow of a marked stylization, and even very marked. However it is well a late roman mosaic and not a re-use of héllénistic origin. Some elements can be retranscribed by late roman esthetics spreads, a little as in the biblical scenes of the Church St Marie major of Rome.

"I can see nothing valuable on the Nabeul mosaics, please provide pictures, also for the Red Sea crossing fresco."

It is easy... If we go there the debate is naturally closed. Idem, you refute rather easily the mosaic of the house of the Medusa of Alter Do chao, it is a pity because numerous elements are very interesting to identify on this mosaic. So that each of us gets an idea, I put here a link:

https://www.academia.edu/1621048/A_Portr..._Portugal_

"On the Dura fresco, you can only see the pauldron on the left side figure, whereas you see the same pauldron forms on the figures standing in the back (...) As for Low Ham, that clearly seems like a kind of a subarmalis, not armor.

Objectively no.

[Virilis]

So what`s the verdict? I`m about to add pauldrons to my new squamata.

[Nathan Ross]

You could try basing them on the galera shoulder-guard found at Gamla - although it's 1st century (probably):

   

[Virilis]

Thanks Nathan, never seen those!

[Dan Howard]

You could try basing them on the galera shoulder-guard found at Gamla - although it's 1st century (probably)

Who says that this is a shoulder guard? You'd need some serious hammer work to beat it into any kind of shape to fit on a shoulder and those holes seem to be in the wrong position to fit on the shoulder. It doesn't look like a piece of armour at all - not for a human. Could it be for a horse?