Roman Persona
Berret Chavez
Heraklides of Sparta wrote:
> >>One can wear Roman garb, fight in Roman-style armor and satisfy the
> authenicity police by having the persona of a 7th - 15th Century Romanoi
> (Eastern Roman / Byzantine).
and Effingham replied:
> Hardly. Garb and armour in late Byzantine culture were totally unlike those of
> Imperial or Rebublican Rome.
In art of the Christian Roman Empire, however, soldiers were often
depicted wearing armor very much like that of the ancients. There is a
bit of an argument over whether this is artistic affection or whether
some guards units in Constantinople still wore armor and uniforms of
this type.
I am of the school which says that no justification is need, because
there is no early cut-off date. But if one wanted to use Heraklides'
suggestion, it is certainly an arguably valid interpretation of
historical record.
Chip
Bardas Xiphias
Calafia, CAID
EddieEffie
>>But if one wanted to use Heraklides' suggestion, it is certainly an arguably
valid interpretation of historical record.
Not really. According to much historical artistic reference, Roman soldiers in
AD 33 wore Venetian padded armour, brigandines, and sallades.
This does not keep in fitting with the archaeological *or* historical material
we have.
Effingham
Anthony J. Bryant
St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Seminary
South Canaan, PA 18459
--------------
"Of what hell will he not be worthy, who taketh the body of Christ and rendeth
it limb from limb?" ---St. John Chrysostom
Berret Chavez
Effingham wrote:
> >>But if one wanted to use Heraklides' suggestion, it is certainly an arguably
> valid interpretation of historical record.
>
> Not really. According to much historical artistic reference, Roman soldiers in
> AD 33 wore Venetian padded armour, brigandines, and sallades.
> This does not keep in fitting with the archaeological *or* historical material
> we have.
Obviously evidence meant to support the artistic affection argument.
However the historical artistic references you mention were done by
people many centuries removed from the subjects they were depicting in
their work. This is a typical affection, as historical record of what
Roman soldiers wore at Jesus' crucifixion was not generally available to
later artists, nor did they think in terms of 'realism' so much as
creating images with which contemporaries could identify. In fact,
"realistic" portrayals of historic events did not come into vouge until
quite recently (last few centuries).
In artwork depicting soldiers in the later Roman Empire, however, there
are very many which depict contemporaries. The artist is depicting
something which he is looking at rather than a story from the past. Can
you see the difference? Given the lack of actual armor surviving from
the 'byzantine' era of the Roman Empire, there is little "hard" evidence
to contradict extrapolation from artistic record.
Steven Boyd
Another wades into the Roman/Byzantine armor debate,
For the record, biases and backgrounds:
Mundanely employed as a Latin teacher
Previously a graduate student in Art History and Archaeology (Classical
Archaeology), with some work in Byzantine Art History
persona: 11th cent Byzantine
The art of the western Roman Empire (and the Republic before it) generally
strove towards realism, it not exactly photographic. There are
innumerable example of statues, coins and frescoes specificly identifiable
to an individual because of the accuracy (or lacking the subject to
observe, at least the consistancy) of Roman portraiture. We are able to
reconstruct with great confidence armor, siege equipment, civilian dress
and many other aspects of Roman physical culture based on the artistic
evidence from sculpture, et al.
Just for fun, check out Roman scupture of the Late Republic, when a
particular fashion was to emphasize all the flaws present in a face
including warts, missing teeth, sagging flesh etc.
Byzantine art is less tightly tied to absolute realism. First of all,
many of their subjects were not contemporary events (Biblical stories,
Fathers of the Church, et al), and so in comparison, they do not have as
many "live models" to work from. This, in addition to the decline in
accuracy in the art of the Latin
west, and the importance of "the image" steer the artist away from the
desire to be entirely "accurate" in his depiction. Yet at the same time,
the precision of the depiction of some pieces (San Vitale in Ravenna, and
much of the secular work, eg) keeps me from saying that the artist had no
interest in depicting
what was actually there.
The armor of The City, as depicted in art, rarely looks that similar to
that of Old Rome. I will grant you the Joshua Roll, which is attributed
to a perhaps poorly-named "Macedonian Renaissence", which is more
archaizing in its style,
but I would ask you, Bardas, to cite other depictions that are
"substantially the same" as that of Old Rome, rahter than a developement
of it.
Andrixos
EddieEffie
>>Given the lack of actual armor surviving from
the 'byzantine' era of the Roman Empire, there is little "hard" evidence
to contradict extrapolation from artistic record.
There is enough.
A form of lamellar armour was fairly common throughout the Byzantine period,
with stylistic and formational differences..
There are some wonderful books on Byz. arms and armour. I believe Dr. Noelle,
one of my Osprey colleagues, wrote one for their Elite series...
Effingham
Jamison J. Long Esq.
In article <199803300958...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
eddie...@aol.com says...
You know you are giving an question regarding seeing if there are other
Roman personas in the society way too much Weight. The Answer is YES and
lets leave it at that. What one does within the society is not yours or
my Business, and I don't think I would gripe if I saw you in a persona i
did not approve of so Stop this B.S. and be done with it.
Dominus Ambrosius Torris.
Jamison J Long
laz...@capital.net
SPPKSP
Y'know, you could also be a standard medieval noble playing his own game of
reproducing a "roman" persona . . . I understand that sort of thing was fairly
common in particular tourneys and balls. And since we are recreating exactly
that environment . . .
Just one for the authenticity cops to chew over.
Berret Chavez
Effingham wrote:
> >>Given the lack of actual armor surviving from
> the 'byzantine' era of the Roman Empire, there is little "hard" evidence
> to contradict extrapolation from artistic record.
>
> There is enough.
Hardly. Can you give some references? I've made a rather extensive
study of the subject and every source I know says the same thing: little
or no actual armor. Our knowledge of 'byzantine' armor comes from art
and manuscripts.
> A form of lamellar armour was fairly common throughout the Byzantine period,
> with stylistic and formational differences..
The most common form of armor used during the 'byzantime' period was a
padded felt coat worn by the foot soldiers. The next most common was
mail. Lamellar was worn by better equipped cavalry units, hardly
"common."
> There are some wonderful books on Byz. arms and armour. I believe Dr. Noelle,
> one of my Osprey colleagues, wrote one for their Elite series...
Dr. Noelle's book is quite good compared to most Osprey books (the later
book, No. 89: _Byzantine Armies 886-1118_ is simply appalling). Perhaps
you should ask your "colleague" about armor surviving from this period.
Easier, flip through a copy of his book. You will not that it contains
>>not one photograph<< of any piece of armor - quite a departure from other Osprey books. All of the photos show >>artwork<< from which we derive our knowledge of their armor. There is one plate which shows line sketches of what equipment does survive from this period: some partial helmets, a partial Turkish greave believed to be in the byzantine style, some swords and some axe heads. Not shown are some belt buckles and fittings. That about sums up the surviving armor. Read the descriptions of the Angus McBride's color plates. They all source the various >>artwork<< from which the illustrations are derived.
Berret Chavez
Dominus Ambrosius Torris wrote:
> You know you are giving an question regarding seeing if there are other
> Roman personas in the society way too much Weight. The Answer is YES and
> lets leave it at that. What one does within the society is not yours or
> my Business, and I don't think I would gripe if I saw you in a persona i
> did not approve of so Stop this B.S. and be done with it.
We are hardly talking about the the subject that sparked this thread
anymore; I should think that would be obvious. This is the nature of
threads on a newsgroup: they evolve. As it happens we are now
discussing historical sources for armor and costume in the later Roman
Empire. If that sounds like B.S. to you, stop reading.
Berret Chavez
Andrixos asked:
> but I would ask you, Bardas, to cite other depictions that are
> "substantially the same" as that of Old Rome, rahter than a developement
> of it.
One right off the top of my desk: a marginal from a 9th century
byzantine bible in the Bib. Nat., Paris: Ms. Gr. 923, f.107v. I could
run over to the library and dig up many more, but I think that is
poiintless. Read any competent book on 'byzantine' armor and you'll
find reference to the artistic affection/actual portrayal argument.
Heck, pick up the book that Effingham cited (Opsrey Men-at-Arms series
No. 247: _Romano-Byzantine Armies 4th-9th Centuries_) and turn to page
39. Read the caption on the photograph: "In this simple illustration
armour appears to be based upon classical Roman prototypes, yet it may
still reflect the equipment of some elite guards units in
Constantinople."
Chip
Bardas Xiphias
Calafia, CAID
BTW, if you were a grad student, you should know that when paraphrazing
someone you should use 'single hash' and not "double hash" quotes. You
wrote "substantially the same" when in fact I said "very much like that
of the ancients". I'm sure you can see the difference between the two.
Please don't misquote me, especially in a manner which so radically
alters the meaning of my statement.
EddieEffie
>>>>not one photograph<< of any piece of armor - quite a departure from other
Osprey books. All of the photos show >>artwork<< from which we derive our
knowledge of their armor.
Sorry. We're talking at cross-purposes. I was referring to (I *think*)
surviving contemporary iconographic references.
Lamellar armour seldom survives the centuries, given that its foundation and
connections were rottable (izzat a word?).
Peter O'Briaroak
>You know you are giving an question regarding seeing if there are other
>Roman personas in the society way too much Weight. The Answer is YES and
>lets leave it at that. What one does within the society is not yours or
>my Business, and I don't think I would gripe if I saw you in a persona i
>did not approve of so Stop this B.S. and be done with it.
I think it is important if one wishes to research a roman or byzantine
soldier's persona. try to help not harm.
Jamison J. Long Esq.
In article <6ftul7$o2d$1...@news.chatlink.com>, harl...@spnt.com says...
useless gripe, and if you are discussing a different topic, then change
the thread name with a used to be called. that s all, this is not in any
way an attack on anyone here at all.
Jamison Long
Laz...@capital.net
Berret Chavez
Effingham wrote:
> Sorry. We're talking at cross-purposes. I was referring to (I *think*)
> surviving contemporary iconographic references.
Then here's the issue: why believe some contemporary iconographic
references (i.e. those that portray lamellar, mail, and scale armor) and
not those contemporary iconographic references that portray 'classic'
Roman armor and costume?
Some of our best sources for 'byzantine' armor are from engravings and
paintings which portray historical events, where the participants are
wearing 'byzantine' armor (e.g. David slaying Goliath). However,
'Classic' style armor (i.e. molded cuirass et al) shows up quite often
in byzantine artwork depicting contemporary events. What are we to make
of this? Is the artist trying to symbolize the spririt of Imperial Rome
by dressing the troops in ancient armor? Or did certain guard units in
Constantinople wear such armor and serve as the artist's "model" for his
work? <note 1> There is no clear answer because very little actual armor
exists from the 'byzantine' period to support either interpretation.
Therefore, either is valid.
> Lamellar armour seldom survives the centuries, given that its foundation and
> connections were rottable (izzat a word?).
There are, in fact, many surviving examples of lamellar armor, some much
older than the late 'byzamtine' period (see Robinson, _Oriental
Armour_). The most commonly cited example is from the Wisby dig, which
dates to the 14th century. But little positively 'byzantine' armor has
been preserved.
Chip
Bardas Xiphias
Calafia, CAID
<note 1>
We have several surviving manuscripts which name and sometimes describe
armor worn by troops on campaign (e.g. Maurice's Strategikon, Leo's
Taktika, Nikophorus' Taktika). None of these, however, preclude the use
of 'ancient' style armor by guards units.