Greeks, Celts and Romans

[rodge]

https://www.academia.edu/6618284/Fighting_Greeks_Naked_Celts_Aspects_of_Roman_Battle_in_Hellenistic_Art_Working_Paper_

Not had a chance to go through this yet so no idea if it is worth a post. It's a work in progress. The author's conclusions state:

'Visual media provided a format in which the relationship between Rome and her Greek allies in the east could be defined and contested. Both the Pergamon bronze and the Pydna monument sought to portray a specific military narrative that filtered the contribution of Rome's
allies.
The Pergamon bronze emphasized Eumenes' contribution to the battle that transcended his small contingent. I have argued that Paullus' monument acknowledges the presence of Greek allies, but then marginalizes them into an inactive corner of the monument.
Furthermore, both pieces attempted to incorporate Gallic adversaries into what was primarily a contest against Hellenistic forces, an unsurprising gimmick given the luster of a Celtic victory was strongly linked to claims of hegemony and ruler-ship in the Hellenistic world. Gauls furthermore provided the Hellenic audience with an important foil to the Roman soldiers featured on the monuments; next to the naked Celt, the Roman barbarian looked positively civilized.'

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting.  Rather than portraying a 'Gallic victory' as such I see this as involving the Hellenistic monarchs (the mutual enemy in both cases) in an abdication of true Hellenistic values, letting the side down through guilt by association with barbarians.  That the monument-makers are doing exactly the same is, as the author reckons, excused by their barbarian allies being not so barbarously barbaric as the monarchs' Galatians.  (One wonders how Greeks of the following century saw Julius Caesar and his Gallic cavalry and auxiliaries ...)

I did like the "discombobulated and even dying Roman infantry". 

[Duncan Head]

I'm not sure there's any real consensus about what event the Pergamon bronze plaque actually represents, though I agree Magnesia seems plausible. Sekunda's Antigond Army cited a recent work, that I haven't tried to track down, that lists the Pergamon plaque amongst a series of Illyrian bronze plaques. It doesn't help that the drawing is all we have; not only has the original vanished, but there seem to be no photos either.

[Duncan Head]

I had forgotten that I did in fact already know the article that associates the Pergamon plaque with Illyrian workmanship - it is at https://www.academia.edu/1165594/Des_plaques_de_ceintures_provenant_des_contr%C3%A9es_illyriennes_et_de_Dassar%C3%A9tie

[Patrick Waterson]

Aha!  So would it be likely to represent something different?  I notice the author refers to it as the "plaque rectangulaire de Pergame" (where it was found) but cops out with "L'identification exacte de cette scène importe peu ici".  The furthest he goes is: "il s'agit d'une scène de combat où l'on remarque des soldats macédoniens. En outre, les symboles (étendard et la tête de Méduse) viennent à l'appui de l'interprétation historique, et non mythique."

So it is a historical engagement with Macedonians and "alliés des Romains".  The author offers (via the works of others) the alternative hypotheses of Magnesia (which he evidently dislikes) and Pydna.  If both items under discussion (plate and monument) actually relate to Pydna then perhaps the basic hypothesis in the 'Fighting Greeks, Naked Celts' paper is more applicable to its subject matter than it knows.

[Duncan Head]

Sekunda, IIRC, is indecisive as to whether the oval-shielded swordsmen are Romans or Celts, and thinks that the pikemen could be either Macedonian or Illyrian - there is a case for the Dardanians at least having adopted the phalanx - and may incline towards seeing the scene as an Illyrian Celtomachy. But looking at the Proeva article, there is less substance to this "alternative" view than I had suspected.

I am inclined to think that the oval-shields are indeed Roman - I think Taylor's right about the tunic-skirts and the helmet-feathers, if we can really read that level of detail into small figures representing a lost original. Nor am I entirely convinced by the Illyrian plaque parallels. The rectangular shape and the patterned edging match, but the pointed gable-end doesn't and the whole style of the battle-scene is different, with far more figures than on any of the Illyrian plaques. So I suspect that the Pergamon plaque probably does indeed represent Magnesia, or Pydna - a Roman-Hellenistic clash, anyway. I am less convinced about the "naked" cavalryman reflecting "Gallic adversaries", partly because of not being sure about trusting details like the apparent pectoral muscles - who knows what that mark on the chest might originally have represented, and if it's not a naked torso, what's to make him a Celt? He may be, but it's uncertain.

[Patrick Waterson]

And if he was just a cavalryman wearing a muscled cuirass (any examples from this period?) then the idea of his constituting symbolic barbarity as part of a propaganda portrayal start to unravel.  However one might observe in support of his alleged nudity - to quote the memorable Paul Hogan - "Strewth, there's a bloke with no strides on!"  The curvature of thigh and buttock seem unimpaired by any clothing whatsoever, unless the lower end of a chiton has been lost in artistic transit.