Ars Dimicandi about european Reenactment in german news

[Graham Sumner]

Hello Tobias and Susanna

No folks I am not P****d I just should really be painting. You have stopped me again because this subject is very interesting to me and to what I am working on at this very moment. I am never P****d off by Roman things.

I too would worry if I saw a reconstruction that while plausible was not based on any evidence. By evidence I mean archaeological, literary or iconography. I think we agree on that point.

With regards to leather armour in general rather than just the segmentata we certainly do have evidence for it in the Roman period, mainly literary and scuplture like the example shown by Travis in his thread (Where is Jim again) and there are pieces of leather finds which can be interpreted as armour of some sort, like the example from Bellana.

I agree Tobias, if the Aztecs had feather armour it does not mean the Romans could have as well. Because none of the Roman sources show it or mention it and none of course has been found.

Susanna, most re-enactors of first century Romans already engage in experimental archeology of sorts if they have a Centurion uniform. These are usually based on a few pieces of sculpture. There is no archaeological finds of first century transverse crests only sculpture and the later Vegetius reference. There is no archaeological evidence for mail with shoulder doubling this too is an interpretation of the sculpture. The pteryges in leather is again based on the sculpture as well as the decorated greaves. And yet these reconstructions are accepted everywhere. If in fact there is any archaeological finds for these things please correct me.

The biggest objection to leather armour made by Russell Robinson was that it was impractical. I think this was wrong and analogies with other periods closely related to the Roman like the early Byzantine period as well as work by modern re-enactors or leather workers has proved this argument wrong. Of course it does not prove alone that first century Romans had leather armour for that we would need, in fact demand physical proof.

Another argument is that if the Romans had better armour why would they use leather. There could be many reasons to answer this. A bit like why don't all British soldiers in Iraq today wear body armour when it exists and the British Government could afford it. Not everyone on this forum would agree that every first century Roman soldier was equipped with lorica segmentata but a mixture of armour types, so why not leather as well?

The figure of Crispus is clearly not wearing a lorica segmentata but he would also appear to be wearing a very odd lorica hamata if that was the case. So what it really boils down to is, do you think the Roman artists were competent or not in what they were showing? As I said before sometimes they appear very accurate but at other times I am not so sure and that can be very frustrating.

Graham.

[arsdimicandi]

I apologize with all the members of this Forum.
My intent wasn’t to instigate a discussion on the leather caresses, but on the methods of investigation and experimentation.
About the sources on the Coriis Tegimenta, I am preparing a brief publication in Italian and English. I will warn the parties in the your specific Topic.

The principle that the archaeological attestation is the only valid to confirm a thesis, and that the literary, epigraphic or iconographic sources "alone" doesn't constitute a probation, it is simply ridiculous.
If we doubted the 'only written' revelations we should doubt about the 80% of that we know about the Roman civilization (we have to remember the immense contribution of the papirology and the CIL, without which we would not know almost anything of the Roman army).
It is certain that such "written" subject needs the careful analysis of the glottologist and the philologist, and also of a Historian able to give a global context to the document, and therefore to recognize its validity.
Nevertheless I would like to do to notice that the archaeological attestation is not mostly sure of that literary, despite the 'physics' presence of the find.

For exemple: who can affirm with certainty that the fragments of metallic segs belonged to the legionaries? Aalen, Carlisle and even Corbridge open interesting considerations toward other military departments.
It can be objected that the iconography confirms the presence of caresses to segments on the milites. Nevertheless just ‘1’ detail among the hundred representations of this caress on the various reliefs, underlines acceptable similes (in the Trajan Column).
Literature doesn't help certain the irons segs, to exception of the "oven for the bread" (clibanus) attributed to the heavy cavalry or perhaps to special Auxilia (so beginning from Augustus). The written sources, contrarily, systematically underline the Hamatae (confirmed by the archaeological attestations) and the organic caresses (not individualize by archaeology).
It derives that a reconstruction based on the archaeology only, start from the presupposition of the incompleteness and the uncertainty in the attribution of the piece. Unless were found whole groupings of legionaries, completely armed (segs include). But this it isn’t.

When in the '98 began the work on the Gladiatura with the dear friend Marcus Junkelmann, we had the same problem: archaeology attested a lot of metallic helmets and greaves, an only metallic parmula and little other accessories: these were the archaeological residue of that fantastic world.
But ArsDimicandi and Marcus has reconstructed that world perfectly, founding the works on the literature and the iconography largely. This choice is visible in many exact and functionally materials from us reconstructed, made of wood, leather, felt and quilts not currently attested by the archaeology. The technique reconstruction besides, it’s better more.

Dear CaiusTarquitius
Experimental archaeology reconstructs Neolithic huts of whose structure, doesn't remain the least material trace.
The residual data or rather, the peculiarities of the holes in the ground, the type of climate and flora of that place, represents the traces from which it is possible to reconstruct an experimental product. Following the same constructive and destructive way of the huts, the result it has to come to correspond to the residual traces.
ArsDimicandi applies the principle in the same way: the residual traces are the punctual descriptions of the literature and some iconographic references.
Also in our case the ‘experimental product’ (as the Neolithic huts reconstructed), represents the most probable and reliable result in comparison to the original subject.

[Susanna]

"Susanna, most re-enactors of first century Romans already engage in experimental archeology of sorts if they have a Centurion uniform."

But they do not do it "active", they "reenact" it, based on reconstructions mostly made by people that do not wear any roman clothing.
Because "experimental archaeology" can be making fire with stones, if you base it on finds, ikonographics or written sources. And then publish it in written form on scientific niveau.
What I mean is that I read so many times "group of experimental archaeology" while they only bought their amor and copy what other do not publishing theirselves.

On that AD is much more deeper in it, cause they do experiments and built their won stuff. I agree with that.
But I do not agree with all their sources and what comes out and the way it is published.

I mean publications like this:

- J. Oldenstein, Zur Ausrüstung römischer Auxiliareinheiten (Dissertation). Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 57, 1976, 51–284.
- J. Oldenstein, Les arms des soldats Romains. Histoire et Archéologie. Les dossiers 86, 1984, 129 ff.
- J. Oldenstein, Mit hasta und lorica Wache schieben. Rekonstruktion der Ausrüstung eines Auxiliarsoldaten aus severischer Zeit. In: E. Schallmayer (Hrsg.), Hundert Jahre Saalburg (1997) 134–146.
- M. Bishop (Hrsg.) Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment. British Archaeological Reports
Int. Ser. 275 (1985)

They are only partly talking about experimental archaeology, but very good onto the theme.

@Graham: I am still interested where I can see your work, sorry I do not know it :wink:

@ Dario: if your publication is ready, if you want and like, I would like to translate your English Version into German.

[caiusbeerquitius]

With regards to leather armour in general rather than just the segmentata we certainly do have evidence for it in the Roman period, mainly literary and scuplture like the example shown by Travis in his thread (Where is Jim again) and there are pieces of leather finds which can be interpreted as armour of some sort, like the example from Bellana.

Once again, I think it is really important for the discussion what Tarbicus and I brought in. Is it really leather, or is it rawhide? Those are quite different materials.

I know that in many publications for excavations the publisher had no idea about the different quality of the two materials, and that very often rawhide objects are declared as "leather" or "hide". Same for translations from Latin into English or German.

[Luca]

Graham,

there are many points that I agree, but your thoughts were remembering me some calls I had with Dr. Raffaele D'Amato some months ago.
Raffaele is a big supporter of leather armours and I believe he's right, as you. As example we discussed about the Marcus Caelius tombstone and it is more than clear that who believes to see an hamata makes a mistake. This can be leather or metal, but none can say only "leather".
On RAT there are also good discussions about pteruges always based on organic "evidences" from reliefs and statues...
And I also think none in RAT can deny the existence of leather or organic armours, and of course I also agree with Dario about the existance of all those organic evidences of course.
The only question is: are there enough proofs to say that leather seg were used? The current clues make me think not.
But please use the correct topic for this discussion:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... segmentata

[caiusbeerquitius]

It derives that a reconstruction based on the archaeology only, start from the presupposition of the incompleteness and the uncertainty in the attribution of the piece. Unless were found whole groupings of legionaries, completely armed (segs include). But this it isn’t.

Nah. You cannot re-construct something you do not have.
All you can do is a "theoretical reconstruction", which then should be labelled as one. Apparently it´s not only the methodology you are not familiar with, but also the terminology.

The principle that the archaeological attestation is the only valid to confirm a thesis, and that the literary, epigraphic or iconographic sources "alone" doesn't constitute a probation, it is simply ridiculous.

Noone here does this. If you´d use the scientific terminology correctly, noone would have a problem, I would say.
Something like "Here´s a theoretical reconstruction of a leather lorica segmentata based on art-historical evidence" would be fine. But actually saying it existed without any finding present is really questionable.

*edit*: Why don´t you com to the RAT conference this year, or next year, so that you can get your theories by way of publication and presentation into the general scientific apparatus, where they will be reviewed and commented by all the experts around? You are very welcome.

[Tarbicus]

About the sources on the Coriis Tegimenta, I am preparing a brief publication in Italian and English. I will warn the parties in the your specific Topic.

Thankyou Dario, that would be much appreciated.

I do see organic and felt armour being mentioned in Civil Wars Book 3,

Quaecumque erant loca Caesari capienda, etsi prohibere Pompeius totis copiis et dimicare non constituerat, tamen suis locis sagittarios funditoresque mittebat, quorum magnum habebat numerum, multique ex nostris vulnerabantur, magnusque incesserat timor sagittarum, atque omnes fere milites aut ex coactis aut ex centonibus aut ex coriis tunicas aut tegimenta fecerant, quibus tela vitarent.

which McDevitte and Bohn translated as,

When Caesar attempted to gain any place, though Pompey had resolved not to oppose him with his whole force, or to come to a general engagement, yet he detached to particular places slingers and archers, with which his army abounded, and several of our men were wounded, and filled with great dread of the arrows; and almost all the soldiers made coats or coverings for themselves of hair cloths, tarpaulins, or raw hides to defend them against the weapons.

But they seem to be emergency temporary measures and unusual, not worn every day as they had to make them on the spot, and merely extra layers to add protection against an overwhelming number of missiles.

[Graham Sumner]

Susanna

I guess what you are saying is that re-enactment reconstruction is not the same as experimental archaeology, do I understand you correctly?

@Graham: I am still interested where I can see your work, sorry I do not know it

You should be able to get the books from Amazon
Roman Military Clothing 1
Roman Military Clothing 2
and
Roman Military Clothing 3
which was written by Raffaele D'Amato, I just illustrated that one based on evidence supplied by him.

He is working with me now on a much larger publication. So I hope you understand that we cannot put all the arguments and evidence here on this Forum because we havn't the time but the work will be published soon.

Christian wrote:

I would say.
Something like "Here´s a theoretical reconstruction of a leather lorica segmentata based on art-historical evidence" would be fine.

I certainly agree with that.

Quote:
About the sources on the Coriis Tegimenta, I am preparing a brief publication in Italian and English. I will warn the parties in the your specific Topic.

Thankyou Dario, that would be much appreciated.

I second that.

Thank you Ars Dimicandi for sparking of this debate in the first place. I think this is far better discussing things like this than just being told 'leather armour never existed end of story!

Graham.

[Graham Sumner]

Hello Luca

Yes, I have looked back at the previous topic and I met Raffaele in Italy only a few weeks ago. It seems we got as far as whether any tests had been done under experimental conditions. Dan Howard believed he had some results somewhere but there the thread ended.

What we could really do with is someone like Mark Beaby at the Royal armouries making some leather segmented arm guards with padding and then David Sim trying out his Dacian Falx against it!

I would not volunteer to place my arm in there though!!! :wink: I would rather be in a tank never mind a metal lorica.

Graham.

[Luca]

Graham, all,

it is not the first time I hear such: "leather armour never existed end of story!" as reported from someone who told this.

But who?

I think that some researchers are trying to create a sort of "scandal" based on a legend that someone said that. Robinson? Some reenacter?
I have never understood this, but it is seems to me a way to create attention, a sort of advertising, in a word a false polemic just as introduction in the worst journalistic way to approach problems.

Am I wrong?

[Tarbicus]

If you look through RAT it's obvious that leather armour is not dismissed off hand.

What I don't understand is why would you bother to cut leather into strips, have to go through all of the attachment process of the fittings and fixing the parts together, when you could just mould two larger pieces into a two piece musculata and avoid all of that? All it does is emulate the form of a metal seg, but offers far inferior protection in comparison.

I actually own a leather musculata which I know wouldn't do the job anywhere near as good as a metal seg or hamata, or even a metal musculata. But, I now want to try a rawhide musculata which I think is far more practical as body protection.

[hephestus]

Salvete,
The movements, the torsions and the bendings that a seg in leather or iron allows aren't allowed from the muscular one, this are allowed of the segments that are superimposition in the inclinations. E' the same concept of the protections for the segment arms.
I wanted to add that the regulation of the leather segments allows also one graduates them pressure of control for the organs of the body and of eventual hernias under effort. Today anyone supports of the efforts (raising weighs as an example) wears one great belt in leather.
Moreover, they are happy that the conversation is taking one interesting line and of exchange of opinions.
Valete

[hephestus]

All it does is emulate the form of a metal seg, but offers far inferior protection in comparison.

And who supports that it is much inferior. All he is from discovering as well as how much is from discovering, still today, which part of the roman army belonged the seg in iron if its reconstruction is right.
For a true comparison it is necessary to wear and to work with the two armors. We have made it.

[Tarbicus]

Today anyone supports of the efforts (raising weighs as an example) wears one great belt in leather.

A fascia ventralis can be worn beneath metal armour. As for compression of the internal organs, I would suggest that is a sign that your metal segs do not fit properly, which would also explain why your building efforts in metal segs had rather unfortunate results.

And who supports that it is much inferior.

A simple test - ask someone to make a choice of metal or leather seg before this happens to them:
[url:3npo67ra]http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistorum/site_eng/Images/falx_02.jpg[/url]
Unless you've actually tried that out? :wink:

All he is from discovering as well as how much is from discovering, still today, which part of the roman army belonged the seg in iron if its reconstruction is right.

Quite possibly both legionary and auxiliary, given the contexts of the finds. I find it strange though that the evidence given in the Columns clearly depicts legionaries wearing segs and auxilia wearing hamata, which has actually been cited for the unreliability of the supposed split between armour types for those two parts of the Roman Army, yet those artefacts are used as clear indication that the leather seg existed because that is what the sculptors have possibly depicted. If that clear difference in armour types in the sculptures is probably wrong, then surely the details of the segs must be held up as thoroughly questionable also?

For a true comparison it is necessary to wear and to work with the two armors. We have made it.

I would be interested to see how your tests compare to a real Roman soldier's duties and circumstances? I am not questioning your efforts, please understand that, but even if your efforts are better than anyone else's it still doesn't make them 100% accurate, and your conclusions could still be 90% wrong.

Addendum: 90% wrong in some cases.

[Tarbicus]

Just one other note to make. Read this discussion on Sworforum:
[url:1zhyhas8]http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=18dc2b6e683d67254b45b3440a33502e&postid=767953[/url]

In there two images are pointed out that are claimed to be leather plates about the body, but quite frankly they seem to me to be examples of fascia ventralis bound around the tunic:
[url:1zhyhas8]http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_i000051.jpg[/url]
[url:1zhyhas8]http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_i0005a9.gif[/url]