Posts: 801
Threads: 70
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:Nam pectora ferro terribilesque innexa iubas ruit agmine nigro latratuque cohors...
"In fact the cohors broke into, with the bodies protected by iron and by the terrible skin coats, all the army growling in a dark way as..."
I admit to being just a beginner latinist, but doesn't "innexa iubas" translate to "fastened crests"? How do you get "skin coats" from this?
This is very hard to read latin. The words do not seem to fit together. So, making some guesses as to the writter's intent, I get:
"For souls [protected] by iron and terrible fastened crests destroy by the black and shouting marching army cohort"
que is an eclitic meaning AND.
I'm assuming that "ferro terribilesque" is an error, and should be: "ferro terribileque". "agmine nigro latratuque" is consistent in that it is entirely in the ablative, so needs to go together: "by the black (dark?) and shouting marching army". I'm not sure, but "cohors" might be the subject. This isn't the usual word ordering.
Titus Licinius Neuraleanus
aka Lee Holeva
Conscribe te militem in legionibus, vide mundum, inveni terras externas, cognosce miros peregrinos, eviscera eos.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.legiotricesima.org">http://www.legiotricesima.org
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Dear Dr. D'Amato,
I have no problem with linen armour in the ancient world. There is copious amounts of evidence to support it and reconstructions suggest that it offered good protection. I have no problem with leather or hide armour (not necessarily in Rome but elsewhere in the ancient world). There is copious amounts of evidence to support it and reconstructions suggest that it was a practical and useful type of armour. What I continue to have a problem with is the existence of segmented leather armour. The only thing you have produced to support this is some illustrations of armour decorated in painted bands. I can think of half a dozen different interpretations for this off the top of my head and dare say I could come up with a few more in time. My favored interpretation is that this represents leather scale armour painted in coloured rows such as those found in Tut's tomb. This is hardly the unambiguous evidence I have requested. Add to this the problems inherent with making segmented armour from leather/hide and you should understand my skepticism.
Posts: 33
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation:
0
Dear Jasper,
yes the correct word is of course iuba, but I am so writing now more by english than by italian so i begin to put j instead i...what a shame for my classical education...In anycase in Daremberg-Sagliot the voice should be under iuba. I will check when in Germanicum.
So my dictionary (Angelini - New lexicon latin-italian) says:
iuba = skin jacket, mane, tail (of horse, of lion etc.); crest (of cock, serpent); helmet crest; comet tail; branch
That is very interesting. The original word must have been used in arcaic Rome as "lion mane" or "wolf tail", so for example the expression "Romulus iubatus" could indicate a small headgear with tail worn by the first King.
Then the word was generally used as tail of the helmet, i.e. the crest of the helmet. And this was its main use.
But its wearing by soldiers may have transformed the application of the word, in some circumstance, in skin jackets. Even though, to be critical against myself, what it is correct always in any case, the word could indicate "a animal jerkin worn over the body" and in this case the described troops could be also people who is wearing animal skin with tail upon the body, as for example aquiliferi.
Philology is very hard. :wink:
Just a little add for Dan, as promised today: the word gurpisu, following the documentation from Nuzi, in the kingdom of Arrapha, tributary state of the Mitanni, indicate material done with goat skin filled of wool or horse-hairs. Stripes of it could be used as armour, sometimes (but not always) covered by metal scales. The word as "segment of a leather armour" was also in the Akkadian Gurpisu/Gursipu, also here sometimes covered with bronze scales sometimes not. From here the word gurzip in Hittite text... :wink:
Best wishes to all people
Raf
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
I am awaiting Kendall's thesis regarding his analysis of the Nuzi texts and will respond soon.
Posts: 33
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation:
0
Dear Dan,
yes also I supposed possible that the armours of Sea people represented, when not of bronze Aegean type, could be alternate rows of lamellae, used as well by Egyptians and ennemies.
But in the same paintings the lamellar armours are worn by Egyptians and the artists shows clearly the rows of the lamellae with their small scales. Instead the others have not it...
There is moreover a interesting thing to consider. The reliefs in Medinet Abu are reliefs, even if painted, so You can touch with Your hands the different details before made and then painted! You can see as some part of armours are sculpted in a excellent way, and details are impressive.
About the argument of different banded armour, scale armours, etc...of Ancient times I advise a very good book of Dr. Gorelik, weapons of ancient East, 2003.
It is not pertinent to Rome, but very instructive in the context
Best wishes
Raf
Posts: 33
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation:
0
Dear Titus,
if we suppose the original text correct we have to link the accusative innexa with pectora (plural neutrum+neutrum) and the accusative iubas with terribiles (plural + plural both female: iuba,iubae and terribilis, e)
So "fastened" or better "entwisted" or "covered" is possible to link only with pectora.
The cohors is the nominative for sure, so should be "the breasts entwisted with iron and the terrible skin coats"
Best wishes
Raf
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Dear Dr D'Amato. This may be a problem with translation from Italian to English but "lamellar" and "scale" are defined differently. Scale consists of small overlapping plates fastened to a foundation such as leather or textile. Lamellar consists of plates wired or laced in such as fashion that no foundation is required. There is some overlap in the two types of armour such as the so-called "locking scale" but the armours of Egypt, Hatti, Assur, etc. should be referred to as "scale" armour and not "lamellar". The earliest occurrence of true lamellar I have encountered is in China during the Warring States period.
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Quote:Dear Dan,
yes also I supposed possible that the armours of Sea people represented, when not of bronze Aegean type, could be alternate rows of lamellae, used as well by Egyptians and ennemies.
But in the same paintings the lamellar armours are worn by Egyptians and the artists shows clearly the rows of the lamellae with their small scales. Instead the others have not it...
Can you demonstrate that all these paintings/sculptings are done by the same artist? If not then it may simply be stylistic or interpretative differences between artists. Nobody would seriously suggest that these reliefs are photo-realistic. I also doubt that each culture, or even each armourer in the same culture used the same sized scales to make their armour. The Nuzi armour for example used large scales on the torso and smaller scales on the sleeves. Both of these are different in size to the scales found on the leather cuirass in Tut's tomb and all of these are different to the scales found by Layard in Nineveh. It is also possible that the armours depicted were made in different time periods. Pitch battles were relatively rare and it is likely that a suit of armour survived many generations. One suit worn in a battle may have been made a century before another. Armour fashions could change a lot during this time. Why is it not possible for two warriors in the same army to be wearing armour made of different-sized scales?
Posts: 801
Threads: 70
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
"terribilesque innexa iubas" is clearly in the Accusative, but the location of the que dosn't make sense. Maybe I do not know enough latin. Also, this is what words.exe gives for iubas:
mane of a horse or a helmet crest
There's no mention of "skin coats". Even if this translation is ok, how do you know that armor is being referred to? Could this not refer to the pelts worn by signifiers?
Another point: the singular verb, ruit, it destroys, with subject cohors, has object "terribiles innexa iubas"? That doesn't agree with either of our translations.
Titus Licinius Neuraleanus
aka Lee Holeva
Conscribe te militem in legionibus, vide mundum, inveni terras externas, cognosce miros peregrinos, eviscera eos.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.legiotricesima.org">http://www.legiotricesima.org
Posts: 6,734
Threads: 489
Joined: Mar 2001
Reputation:
27
Guys, it's my fault too, but this thread has gotten waaaaaay of its original topic. Who can summarize these 'leather armour' arguments in a good new starting point for a new thread?
Posts: 33
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation:
0
Dear people,
I agree with Jasper but, having a moment quiet, I have translated again in any case the text (in italian for my better comprehension then in English - forgive my english)
nam pectora ferro
terribilesque innexa iubas ruit agmine nigro
latratu<que> cohors quanto sonat horrida Ditis
ianua vel superas Hecates comitatus in auras.
Infatti la coorte, i petti coperti di ferro e le terribili coperture di pelle (o le terribili creste), irrompe in nera schiera con un grido che echeggia grande quanto l’orrida porta di Plutone o il comitato di Ecate nelle sfere superiori (cioè fuori dalle regioni infernali)
Then, the Cohors, the breasts covered by iron and the terrible coats of skin (or: the terrible crests), bursts into as a black band screaming loud as resounds the horrid door of Pluto or the company of Hecates (Ades) in the superior spheres
Where the construction is:
Cohors = subject in nominative
pectora ferro
terribilesque innexa iubas = the breasts covered by iron and the terrible coats of skin (or: the terrible crests) = accusative of relation with the subject
Ruit: verb, but transitive, constructed with accusative; so the we can not translate “burst into a black bandâ€Â
Posts: 33
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation:
0
Dear Dan,
I perfeclty agree on the fact that each culture or armourer did not use always the same sized scales to make one armour. We have thousand proofs of this, in many of scale armour finds in the same context. Not only is possible that two warriors in the same army wore armours made of different-sized scales, and different armours of linen, leather, bronze, iron, but for me is exaclty it the confirmation of the precision of the ancient artists, who reproduced all the different kinds of armours worn by the warriors, soldiers, princes, generals, in a same painting. The ancient artist was a man whom the Gouvernement did not give many freedom in his work: he has just to reproduce the event. They have (especially in the case of the Ancient Egypt) direclty under eyes the models to reproduce. In the limits of a relief, in the limits of a painting, the artist reproduced in colour the colourful and living world they saw. And if one art is iperrealistic is exactly the Egyptian one. In the mentioned examples You can see as the school of artists who worked in Medinet Habu (realised just in few years to celebrate the victories of Ramesse III against all enemies) and the school who worked in Abu Simbel and Karnak on the battle of Kadesh, realised very detailed portraits of different armours in different details: You can see Hittite warriors wearing the armours in alternate rows of gold and blue scales, horse protections of at lot of different type, warriors waring the so called saryanni and warriors covered by the whole sariam in bronze.
The wall painting from the tomb of Kenamon, under the reign of Amenhotep II, is so detailed that you can calculated more or less 450 scales, seeing even as the spine of each scale, even the holes through which the scales were sewn to the cloth. I am not saying it, Yadin said it much more time before me. This is for me like a photo.
About the question of lamellar I agree with the general principle You exposed, but it is not the rule. Studinyg Rome and Byzantium, especially with the last evolution of the Roman military culture, we can see as the lamellar armour was widely used in a lot of different ranges; Professor Dawson demonstrated as a technological evolution of the Roman lamellar armour known as klibanion in East-Roman sources was exactly the riveting of a the single lamella with a small rivet to a leather background, to reinforce the whole structure without loosing flexibility. I am not sure if in the armour of some Egyptian officers the scales are disposed on a lamellar coat, but we have may be one of the first description of lamellar coat in the famous description of the armour of Agamemnon in Ilias XI,17-29. The thesis has been proposed by Westholm in his article on the lamellar or splint armour found in Idalion and Amanthus.
About Assyrians I have not doubt about the use of the lamellar, together with scales, all of many different types and shapes.
I agree a lot with You about the fact that a suit of armour survived many generations. Think that some italian man was wearing in the first war world helmet of XVII century modified for the attack to ennemy trances
If it was it in the XIX century, think about the ancient world!!!
Best wishes
Raf
Posts: 8,090
Threads: 505
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:Then agmine nigro (black band) must be referred to the cohors
Is this a reference to actual colour, do you think, or artistic license?
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Posts: 6,734
Threads: 489
Joined: Mar 2001
Reputation:
27
Guys... Last time. Get back to the original topic or this thread gets a lock on it!
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
Quote:Just a little add for Dan, as promised today: the word gurpisu, following the documentation from Nuzi, in the kingdom of Arrapha, tributary state of the Mitanni, indicate material done with goat skin filled of wool or horse-hairs. Stripes of it could be used as armour, sometimes (but not always) covered by metal scales. The word as "segment of a leather armour" was also in the Akkadian Gurpisu/Gursipu, also here sometimes covered with bronze scales sometimes not. From here the word gurzip in Hittite text... :wink:
OK. I have digested Timothy Kendall's PhD thesis: Warfare and Military Matters in the Nuzi Tablets. Brandeis University, 1974. The word gurpisu refers to helmets. It seems you are confusing gurpisu with kalku, which is a strip or band of scales which is attached to a leather foundation to form scale armour ( sariam). Two examples of these kalku (18 bronze scales in each strip) were found in Room 18 of the house of Prince Silwatesup. Gurpisu refers to head protection for either men or horses. This can be a helmet, a helmet with a scale aventail that covers the neck and sometimes extends over the shoulders. On rare occasions the term seems to be referring to a scale corselet with an integrated hood. There is nothing that even remotely suggests that it refers to armour made from banded or segmented leather. There is an extremely detailed analysis of the term gurpisu on pp189-193. FWIW all of the armour in the Nuzi texts is scale armour. The elite wore copper/bronze scale armour, others wore leather scale but all of it belongs in the "scale armour" typology. Definitely no banded or segmented leather here. Goatskin or sheepskin was used as the foundation upon which the rows of scales were attached and wool was used as a lining.
Quote: About the question of lamellar I agree with the general principle You exposed, but it is not the rule. Studinyg Rome and Byzantium, especially with the last evolution of the Roman military culture, we can see as the lamellar armour was widely used in a lot of different ranges; Professor Dawson demonstrated as a technological evolution of the Roman lamellar armour known as klibanion in East-Roman sources was exactly the riveting of a the single lamella with a small rivet to a leather background, to reinforce the whole structure without loosing flexibility. I am not sure if in the armour of some Egyptian officers the scales are disposed on a lamellar coat, but we have may be one of the first description of lamellar coat in the famous description of the armour of Agamemnon in Ilias XI,17-29. The thesis has been proposed by Westholm in his article on the lamellar or splint armour found in Idalion and Amanthus.
About Assyrians I have not doubt about the use of the lamellar, together with scales, all of many different types and shapes.
You have completely missed the point. The only armour that may be called "lamellar" is armour that does not require a leather or textile foundation. None of the armour you mention fits this parameter. By definition it must be classified as scale armour. The size or shape of the plates is irrelevant. The direction of the overlap is irrelevant. If the plates are fixed to a foundation then the armour is scale. If the plates are laced or wired together such that no foundation is needed then it is lamellar. These are arbitrary derfinitions agreed to by the majority of armour schoalrs. If you don't stick to these definitions then all you do is create unnecessary confusion. It would probably be easier to get rid of the term "lamellar" all together and move it into a sub-class of "scale" armour.
Continuing this discussion on the leather segmentata thread.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=5500
|
