Lupus help

[Tarbicus]

Objective observation then: What we can tell as identifiable animals don't look like wolves, not a single one so far, but they do look like bears and big cats.

That is what we told in germany a "Kehrschluß" and used every time logical dosnt wanted to be accepted.

No logic has been shown concerning wolf skins yet, only supposition and speculation. Just because someone publishes a book doesn't mean they are correct, they may well just be theorising themselves.

A tradition mostly, not every time, has reasons to let somewhat of itself die out, IF (!) this happens.
And still now, we dont have an evidence THAT the wearing of wolf skins died out or why it should.

We haven't actually established they were worn.

If the length would playing a role, why did the armies choose the eagle? Very unspectacular, arent they? The bull or the bear would be much greater.

Jupiter, they even held thunderbolts. As for the claim that the bull and bear are more impressive, that's purely subjective.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Hey guys, calm down a little, hm?

Tib. Gabinius: Please read your posts once again before hitting the submit-button, and check for spelling. A little bit hard to read that last one. Or use the nice and friendly "spell check" button.

@topic: As with every "reconstruction", better "historical display", it is best to keep to (an) original(s). We have no surviving wolf-, lion-, bear- or whatsoever- skin used by an -ifer, so the best idea might be to leave them away because several questions have to remain unanswered:
- how long were they at the back?
- how were they connected to the helmet?
- did they have a lining?
- were there still bones (skull)?
- did they have glass eyes? :wink:
- were they cut to fit the wearer?
and so on.

Next: How much sense does it make to have a standard bearer besides a vexillarius? Or how many groups are nearly cohort-strength? It is sometimes like having "5 chieftains and one Indian".

Maybe there are some other interesting fields, where all the energy spent here might be invested in a more sensible way? P

[Caius Fabius]

Hey guys, calm down a little, hm?

Next: How much sense does it make to have a standard bearer besides a vexillarius? Or how many groups are nearly cohort-strength? It is sometimes like having "5 chieftains and one Indian".

Maybe there are some other interesting fields, where all the energy spent here might be invested in a more sensible way? P

:lol: You know the rules! First you start your own Legion, and you must have a webpage, then you are a centurion, then you need a standard bearer, and next either a legate, tribune or horn player. After you have all three of those, then you must find an optio, and of course, you can't really work with any of the other "Legions" .........
just kidding.... :twisted:

[Tib. Gabinius]

I am not accepting that the traditions of the 1960's and 1970's are correct, and should be copied, or even continued. I know it was traditional for movies and reenactors to use a wolf pelt when they did their portrayals, and now modern groups want to do the same. It is not proved historically.

These "traditions" were already written by some of the early scientists and were still written. Junkelmanns book about augusteian army is last time brought out 2003 or somewhat, originally 1986.
Goldsworthy is also about 2000 in his last, Limesmuseum Aalen publish till this year and will continue ...

Just because veletes wore the wolf-skin is no reason to ASSUME that the -ifers did 150 years-300 years- 450 years later.

"Only", thats right, but a good hint in the direction of a tradition, which is broken, and the ask for what... thats it.

Until you find sculptural evidence then you should go with what is provable to the time period you are re-enacting. You don't mix Republican Shields, Mainz Gladii, and Ridge Helmets just because they were mentioned by Vegetius?

Look from other direction its the same, and that what i told in my last posting already, unless you find a clear evidence that exclude all other than bears and lions... cause its not the provable fact that they animals are just bears, its a subjetice interpretation.

I understand that it is expensive to get a bearskin, when you already have a wolf-pelt.

Money isnt a reason why i discuss about historical facts, to stand a historical fact where no one is, thats my reason.
And to argument against "proved and well known" scientist, thats for me a reason.

The problem is, when you advise a newcomer to get what you have, just because you have it. A newcomer wanting to invest his or her money in a historical headdress for an -ifer, should not buy a wolf-skin.

For me, its more a problem of some who tell "the truth" where he should tell: we dont know exactly.
If you wrote: in my opinion you shouldnt buy a wolf, than i wouldnt say something.
But right now, you cant tell "wolf or bear" or "only bear" is the truth.
And by the way, to say, i would tell a newcomer to buy something just to get my or our equipment as only right harms me and anoy me.

The eagle-bearer is bare-headed or wearing a wreath in all of the sculpture I have looked up since this discussion started. Bare headed, not bear headed. The other -ifers wear a bear head or large feline head in every sculpture that I have seen, if they are wearing a headdress. Some funerary stele show the -ifer bare-headed, but also show a standard. Some just mention his rank in the inscription.

Check the one i gave in my text, you ll see, that i didnt lie or were "phantasm".
That theres an animal on the head if they wear a helmet i never denied.

This might be a good subject for a thesis, if someone wants to spend hours and hours doing the research, but until someone can find actual visual evidence, a person just starting or creating a new an -ifer impression should not use Hollywood, the ESG, or other reenactment groups as their historical model, unless they are reenacting 1970's Roman reenactors.

And this is it again.
Here what you do: "The wolf is an imagination of Hollywood and the Ermines".
And thats not right, cause people in the 19th centurie already wrote "wolf or bear", when they describe coins or reliefs. And its not clear, if the pictures show only bear. Thats the same like discussion about woven or "stiched" clavi, clavi colour, subarmalis and many more parts.
So "Hollywood and Ermines brought it": wrong
"Only bears" your opinion, not a "truth", which we dont have right now.

And we already know that Vegetius confuses...

Yeah the kind to handle the sources, esp. this one, is every time, important, thats why no one argumented with passages of him or someone else.
I said: not one source, Vegetius, Ammianus, Arrian and so on tell us anything about rules like "only bears". More or less i didnt told...

Tib. Gabinius: Please read your posts once again before hitting the submit-button, and check for spelling. A little bit hard to read that last one. Or use the nice and friendly "spell check" button.

I know that my english is very bad (and still got this 2nd time of someone "he said what i tried"), and i excuse me nearly every time. I m thankfull if some find to hard mistakes and tell them to me (and how to do it better).
But if its a problem that my english is to bad i ll shut up

I agree to the other problems of signiferian reconstruction.

[Caius Fabius]

Your English is fine to me, much better than my German! I uderstand what you are trying to tell me. I just don't believe that the 18th and 19th century writers knew more than we do today about the Romans. I have Junklemann's books, most of them, but he is not a better source than the actual artifacts. Yes the war of 1938-1945 destroyed many artifacts, but what we have, we must use (and record so that they are never completely lost).

Until you can prove that wolves are period, you should not tell people to use a wolf's skin when doing the -ifer. If you want to do a velete, then the wolf is fine, since it was recorded by people who actually saw it.

Which contemporary authors state that the Roman -ifers wore wolf skins? Greek, Latin, Parthan,...? All we have for proof is the stele, statuary, an monuments.

To assume that a wolf-skin tradition carrys on for 100-500 years, and is transferred from the lowest classes to the most respected NCO in the unit (if you consider that the centurio is an officer) is a great leap of imagination, but not very logical. What tradition is this? I don't see the connection.

[Tib. Gabinius]

Your English is fine to me, much better than my German! I uderstand what you are trying to tell me. I just don't believe that the 18th and 19th century writers knew more than we do today about the Romans. I have Junklemann's books, most of them, but he is not a better source than the actual artifacts. Yes the war of 1939-8-1945 destroyed many artifacts, but what we have, we must use (and record so that they are never completely lost).

Until you can prove that wolves are period, you should not tell people to use a wolf's skin when doing the -ifer. If you want to do a velete, then the wolf is fine, since it was recorded by people who actually saw it.

Which contemporary authors state that the Roman -ifers wore wolf skins? Greek, Latin, Parthan,...? All we have for proof is the stele, statuary, an monuments.

To bring the last words in the round of me, and i repeat myself:
I dont try to tell you: the fact is the used wolves. I try to tell you that you neither can tell us "they used only bears" cause there are no facts for, neither you can say "they used both".
Exactly, we dont know it for sure, theres a discussion, born out of different interpretation of the imagines we have as only source (which is bad ALL the time, for everything historical).
We can continue in this kind some days i guess, you who want from me evidences for wolfes, and me telling you there arent clear words for one of both theories.
So i ll stop right now.

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Me too.

It's a bizantine discussion. :lol:

[Caius Fabius]

Right now, we know that they used bears and lions. All else is speculative.
With all of the contention about other items that we have more evidence for, this seems to be one where I would never suggest that someone buy a wolf skin, until we have some evidence. You see this differently. Hopefully whomever read this and is thinking about buying an animal skin to use as a -ifer, will make their own informed decision, not being limited by only what has been seen in modern contexts.

[Primitivus]

Look I don't care what you want to wear, you can wear... caribou, whatever...

[size=150:28nsw5jy]
The vikings (at least the women) apparently wore Moose horns, so perhaps caribou would be appropriate for some Northern barbarians..?[/size]

[caiusbeerquitius]

I know that my english is very bad (and still got this 2nd time of someone "he said what i tried"), and i excuse me nearly every time. I m thankfull if some find to hard mistakes and tell them to me (and how to do it better).
But if its a problem that my english is to bad i ll shut up

No, I just asked you to use the spell check button. It is just below the box into which you enter your text. Try it out!

[TIB. CLAVDIVS ZENO]

hock:
Okay. Thanks for the information.

I'm new at this and didn't realize the topic was a land mine.
But hey, you know what the boys at Monty Python used to say :?

[Marcus Julius]

And that from the left? are'nt similar?

I have to agree that one "from the left" is screaming kitty, kitty.

By the way, My uncle has gotten his hundredth (OK, slight exaggeration, but he's gotten a lot of them) bear tag this year. Maybe I'll have to beg him for the hide since he already has a few, and I can never seem to draw a bear permit

Wonder how much attention a Mountain Lion would draw if I tried using it to substitute for actual lion (just kidding, don't crank up the flamethrower just yet). I do have a cat permit this year.