SoA Forums

Hi all

I have tried to find for some time images / sculpture that shows any potential colouring or design on early Polybian scuta. All the examples of scuta I can find are smooth in the carvings, though I'm aware that they may have been coloured at one time. It's easy to find carved examples showing designs on Greek and Imperial shields which are temporally before and after. Polybius only mentions a covering in hide as far as I'm aware. Does anyone know:

1. was the hide true hide (ie. hair covered) or is this a loose translation that actually refers to leather?
2. is there any suggestion that the scuta were coloured (other than hide shades)
3. is there any suggestion that that had other designs, insignia, crests etc on them

Cheers

Rhys

Polybios says that the scutum is covered in calfskin - moscheio dermati. Derma is skin or hide:

Quote from: LSJδέρμα , ατος, τό, (δέρω)
A.skin, hide, "συός" Il.9.548, al.; "κριοῦ" Pi.P.4 161; "δ. αἴγειον" PEdgar11.8 (iii B. C.), etc.; λέοντος a lion's skin for a cloak, Il.10.23; κελαινόν, of a shield, 6.117; of skins prepared for bags, bottles, etc., Od.2.291; of a man's skin, Il.16.341, Od.13.431, Pl.Phd.98d, etc.; of a man's skin stripped off, Hdt.4.64, 5.25; "παλαιὸν δ." A.Fr.275.4; "περὶ τῷ δ. δέδοικα" Ar.Eq.27, cf. Pax746; "ἀνὴρ κατὰ δέρμα θαυμαστὸς οἷος" Aristid.Or.51(27).38; of the shell of a tortoise, Ar.V.429,1292.

So it looks more like raw hide than treated leather, but whether it's still hair-covered may be too much to tell.

As far as I know there is very little evidence for early Roman shields having any design, except for the Tarragona relief of Minerva with a wolf-head boss (http://pepserra.com/sites/fortifica/index-en.html) that Sekunda uses in his Osprey illustrations. Livy 27.47 has Hasdrubal identifying new Roman troops from their "old shields which he had not seen before", but that need not mean that they had distinctive designs: in fact, if you could tell one legion from another by its design, that would be a far more obvious thing to mention. About the earliest scutum blazon I have seen is on the Praeneste fish mosaic (https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/leach/www/2006/fishmosaic2.jpg) which may date from about 100 BC.

Thanks for that Duncan....I had pretty much come to a similar conclusion but just wanted to hear from others wiser than me on the topic.

Cheers

Rhys

It's possible that the old shields had weathered or discolored more, which made them distinctive from the ones he had seen previously.

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 13, 2014, 07:56:02 PM

As far as I know there is very little evidence for early Roman shields having any design, except for the Tarragona relief of Minerva with a wolf-head boss (http://pepserra.com/sites/fortifica/index-en.html) that Sekunda uses in his Osprey illustrations. Livy 27.47 has Hasdrubal identifying new Roman troops from their "old shields which he had not seen before", but that need not mean that they had distinctive designs: in fact, if you could tell one legion from another by its design, that would be a far more obvious thing to mention.

In this connection the Cannae stories of 'deserters' joining the fight after somehow acquiring Roman shields, which I take to indicate that when Hannibal's Romanised veterans closed in from flanks and rear they were initially mistaken for friendly troops, would suggest a universal shield design with no unit-related designations, otherwise even the dullest optio would realise that Flaminius' legions could not possibly be part of their present army.

I have a trace memory (and thus very possibly wrong) of reading (in a secondary source) that when Scipio took over in Spain he has a go at someone for having a too pretty shield (I.e. might be afraid to get it damaged). 

(Advanced apologies for possible inaccurate info - too busy/late to try to find it!)

Quote from: Frontinus, IV.1.5Scipio Africanus, noticing the shield of a certain soldier rather elaborately decorated, said he didn't wonder the man had adopted it with such care, seeing that he put more trust in it than in his sword.

Quote from: Polyainos VIII.16.4Seeing a soldier very intent on displaying the elegance of his shield; "It is a shame," said Scipio, "for a Roman to pride himself more on the ornament of his left hand, than of his right."

There's another version in Livy, in the Periochae (summaries) of the lost Book LVII:

QuoteScipio Africanus [Aemilianus] besieged Numantia ...  to one who had difficulty with his shield, he said "although you are carrying a shield that is larger than prescribed, I don't blame you, because you know better how to manage a shield than to manage a sword".

Which does suggest the possibility that the original anecdote may have had nothing to do with painting the shield.

Well that is all excellent info, thanks everyone.

Duncan, you never cease to amaze with the rapidity with which you pop out obscure references.

My original reason for asking was that I am painting up some 15mm Polybian Romans. I have always thought that the nice uniform ranks with matching coloured shields that you see in magazines etc were a bit false. Even in modern times with mass production equipment and uniforms end up being non-standard in war (eg. WW2 Germany and Russia) so in a period where each soldier provided their own gear, there would have been little uniformity (except perhaps the wearing of a particular item of colour eg. red cloak). I have gone with different shades of white through red for clothing with the triarii and principes more red than pink/white while velites and hastati are more pink/white than red - figuring the older veterans could probably afford better dye quality or newer clothes. I have read somewhere that colour was more a concept in the ancient world than what we consider today, so red for example would represent a much wider spectrum of shades than we would identify). I have also used different shades of leather (straw through dark brown) for the scuta and I actually think they look alright.

Quote from: Citizen6 on May 15, 2014, 07:02:57 AM
Duncan, you never cease to amaze with the rapidity with which you pop out obscure references.

Sometimes I cheat.

(I did remember Frontinus under my own steam, but then the version on Lacus Curtius (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/home.html) had links to the other two.)

Interesting that the anecdote is about the sword, clearly the prime definer  of a legionary's  trade.
Roy

Quote from: Duncan Head on May 14, 2014, 10:50:19 PM

Which does suggest the possibility that the original anecdote may have had nothing to do with painting the shield.

Perhaps, but the idea that an individual soldier had a fancy shield, fancier than his unit, seems to be accepted as possible.  This doesn't necessarily mean each man has an individual design but may imply personal responsibility for painting the shield.

Quote from: Erpingham on May 15, 2014, 12:50:55 PMPerhaps, but the idea that an individual soldier had a fancy shield, fancier than his unit, seems to be accepted as possible.

If only by writers several centuries after the date of the anecdote.

Quote from: Citizen6 on May 15, 2014, 07:02:57 AM

I have always thought that the nice uniform ranks with matching coloured shields that you see in magazines etc were a bit false. Even in modern times with mass production equipment and uniforms end up being non-standard in war (eg. WW2 Germany and Russia) so in a period where each soldier provided their own gear, there would have been little uniformity (except perhaps the wearing of a particular item of colour eg. red cloak). I have gone with different shades of white through red for clothing with the triarii and principes more red than pink/white while velites and hastati are more pink/white than red - figuring the older veterans could probably afford better dye quality or newer clothes. I have read somewhere that colour was more a concept in the ancient world than what we consider today, so red for example would represent a much wider spectrum of shades than we would identify).

This would seem to be a good approach for painting Romans who spend some time away from home (e.g. with various Scipios in Spain) and have to rely on their own ingenuity/cash in hand and local resources to replace old and worn clothing.  Romans operating in Italy or on a single campaign basis elsewhere might present a more uniform appearance if only because they would most probably have a fresh tunic at the start of the campaign (assuming they want to get picked first by the tribunes as per Polybius VI.20) and the local dyers probably do only the one shade of red.

Some variation in shades of red for troops from different areas might be noticeable unless the senate had at some point insisted on standardisation.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 15, 2014, 07:28:48 PM

Some variation in shades of red for troops from different areas might be noticeable unless the senate had at some point insisted on standardisation.

If they wore red...

And therein lies a new thread, bring supplies for that one, i think

Quote from: AdamPHayes on August 13, 2014, 02:04:22 PMIf they wore red...

Quote from: Isidore of Seville, Etymologies XIX.22.10The reddened (russata) garment, which the Greeks call Phoenician and we call scarlet, was invented by the Lacedaemonians so as to conceal the blood with a similar color whenever someone was wounded in battle, lest their opponents' spirits rise at the sight. Roman soldiers under the consuls wore this, whence they used to be called russati.

Quote from: Martial, Epigrams XIV.129RED CLOAKS OF CANUSIAN WOOL.

Rome more willingly wears  brown cloaks; Gaul prefers red, a colour which pleases children and soldiers.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 13, 2014, 03:10:22 PM
Rome more willingly wears  brown cloaks; Gaul prefers red, a colour which pleases children and soldiers.

Do we have any idea how much latitude there is in the translation of these colour terms? That is, are they literal translations or is it an approximate translation? Orange is a classic example, being named after the fruit which was a late medieval / early Renaissance introduction to Europe. So would Romans for example have classed orange as "red" or as "yellow"?

The question that then arises is would a Roman culturally recognise red / brown in the same way that we do? We are used to colour wheels and colour theory, but given that these concepts are from the Enlightenment, I wonder how the ancients saw colour. I do recall reading somewhere that there was a major emotional aspect to their description of colour which is why the sea, for example, was often described as black when quite obviously it isn't.

I think this is going to involve a discussion of dyes of the period and their availability and use ... seas can be 'wine-dark' or any of a number of other shades according to observation and/or poetic taste, but clothing seems to have been pretty much limited to what you could squeeze out of molluscs, madder, etc. so the possibilities were a bit more limited.

If tomb paintings are anything to go by, their colour perception was not too different to ours.  That is my impression, anyway.

Quote from: Citizen6 on August 14, 2014, 10:53:20 AMDo we have any idea how much latitude there is in the translation of these colour terms?

Well, you can find the original text at (among other places) http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ (http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/):

QuoteCanusinae rufae

Roma magis fuscis vestitur, Gallia rufis,
     Et placet hic pueris militibusque colos.

So "brown" is fuscus, "red" is rufus. You can then look these up using the Perseus Project's Latin word study tool. Fuscus "dark, swarthy, dusky, tawny"; rufus "red, reddish, of all shades, acc. to Gell. 2, 26, 5", among other things red-haired but also linked to blood.

The "Gell." reference is to Aulus Gellius' discussion of colour in Latin:

QuoteWHEN the philosopher Favorinus was on his way to visit the exconsul Marcus Fronto, who was ill with the gout, he wished me also to go with him. And when there at Fronto's, where a number of learned men were present, a discussion took place about colours and their names, to the effect that the shades of colours are manifold, but the names for them are few and indefinite, Favorinus said: "More distinctions of colour are detected by the eye than are expressed by words and terms. For leaving out of account other incongruities, your simple colours, red (rufus) and green (viridis), have single names, but many different shades. And that poverty in names I find more pronounced in Latin than in Greek. For the colour red (rufus) does in fact get its name from redness, but although fire is one kind of red, blood another, purple another, saffron another, and gold still another, yet the Latin tongue does not indicate these special varieties of red by separate and individual words, but includes them all under the one term rubor, except in so far as it borrows names from the things themselves, and calls anything 'fiery,' 'flaming,' 'blood-red,' 'saffron', 'purple' and 'golden.' For russus and ruber are no doubt derived from rufus, and do not indicate all its special varieties, but ξανθός and ἐρυθρός and πυρρός and κιρρός and φοῖνιξ seem to mark certain differences in the colour red, either intensifying it or making it lighter, or qualifying it by the admixture of some shade.

OK?

Thanks Duncan. That answer my question most satisfactorily.

So to summarize we can really only divide Roman colour language into a very limited colour wheel as red quite obviously seems to encompass orange, purple, and even dark yellow colours. Which would also suggest that there is even some possible chromatic overlap between the orange end of the "red" capes and "brown", especially as tonal qualities are darkened.

Fascinating that the Romans considered gold and saffron as shades of red, whereas to our way of categorising they are clearly yellows.

The sea is wine dark.

Everyone on this forum should know that, they tell you often enough

Yet no-one knows precisely what it means...

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/20/science/homer-s-sea-wine-dark.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/20/science/homer-s-sea-wine-dark.html)

http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/hoffman_01_13/ (http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/hoffman_01_13/)

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/essays/a-winelike-sea.php?page=all (http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/essays/a-winelike-sea.php?page=all)

Quote from: Mark G on August 14, 2014, 01:10:03 PM
The sea is wine dark.

To Greeks.  To quote from wikipedia entry on the colour blue

"The ancient Greeks classified colours by whether they were light or dark, rather than by their hue. The Greek word for dark blue, kyaneos, could also mean dark green, violet, black or brown. The ancient Greek word for a light blue, glaukos, also could mean light green, grey, or yellow.["

Based on a passage about the Classis Britannica I vaguely recall, the Romans painted their scout ships blue for camouflage, which suggests they thought the sea was blue.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 14, 2014, 01:17:43 PM
Based on a passage about the Classis Britannica I vaguely recall, the Romans painted their scout ships blue for camouflage, which suggests they thought the sea was blue.

I can't speak for the Mediterranean, but where I live painting a ship blue (as we think of it) would make it stand out like dog's bollocks.   :)

So would it be too controversial then to suggest that we could/should be painting our Roman forces in a variety of browns, reds, pinks, purples, yellows and oranges...all under the epithet of "red".

Hmmm... actual history vs agreed perception of history      :)

Quote from: Citizen6 on August 14, 2014, 02:09:00 PMSo would it be too controversial then to suggest that we could/should be painting our Roman forces in a variety of browns, reds, pinks, purples, yellows and oranges...all under the epithet of "red".

I wouldn't go quite that far. Lucretius, for instance, treats "saffron" as something other than red (lutea russaque vela et ferrugina - "awnings, saffron, red and dusky blue"), despite what Gellius says, so I'm not at all sure how far into the "yellow" we cxan push the concept of "red".

Isidore links the "russus" colour of soldiers' clothing to the colour of blood; and someone else describes soldiers dressed in the colour of Mars, and Mars is usually shown dressed in red-as-we-know-it. The colour on those of the Dura shields that are red is quite a bright "mainstream" red, too. So if we assume uniform issue, I'd go for a colour within the range of red-as-we're-used to. If we assume Republican citizen-soldiers providing their own red military tunics, then more variety in shade no doubt, but not far enough from "blood-red" to lose the martial connotations.

Assuming the clothes were died with madder, this image of the range of possible colours might be useful :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naturally_dyed_skeins.jpg

Quote from: Citizen6 on August 14, 2014, 02:09:00 PM

I can't speak for the Mediterranean, but where I live painting a ship blue (as we think of it) would make it stand out like dog's bollocks.   :)

And the sea is a bitch.  ;)  Funnily enough, Admiralty camouflage schemes of 1943-45 (after Peter Scott had talked to them) involved painting the upper part of the hull light grey and the lower part blue.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 14, 2014, 03:26:41 PM
Assuming the clothes were dyed with madder, this image of the range of possible colours might be useful :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naturally_dyed_skeins.jpg

Excellent find, Anthony.  I suspect the Romans would incline toward the darker end of the spectrum, probably the example on the right.  Classical cultures seem to have admired uniformity in their contingents and gone to considerable lengths to achieve it.