Search results

OK, since the cat has been let out of the bag (I did post this on MedRom a couple of weeks ago) I might as well own up to the gloat. Come to think of it, if I wanted to keep this a deep dark secret, gloating over on MedRom was not a particularly sensible thing to have done. However, I was so...

Couple of pointers (from an archaeologist). (1) The rivets holding the various brass (NOT bronze) fitments on to the iron plates were made of almost pure copper. In this scale, it would be an obvious difference from the yellow of the brass. (2) Where the brass fitments are in contact with the...

Not entirely impossible that flowers were thrown at victorious gladiators. The strewing of rose petals, in military triumphs, was certainly done. There was also a custom known as the festival of "rosaliae signorum" when the standards of the legions were decked with roses (I think this was done...

The general consensus seems to be that the most likely colour for the Roman military tunic was 'natural' colour, i.e. off-white (unbleached wool), at least during the first two centuries AD. Thereafter there is some evidence that the colour shifted to red, before going back to white again in the...

Now, Mr. Green - I would greatly appreciate it if you did not send me any 'private' messages. If you have anything useful or constructive to say to me, then please do it publicly. Then we can all see what a rude little man you are. You have blown a trivial observation on my part into a very...

Oh dear! Did I disagree with your opinion? Actually, you DID question my 'qualifications': "Some knowledge of the period" is a rather dismissive way to put things. I'm not 'arrogant' about it - it just seemed to me that you were implying that I didn't know what I was talking about, so I provided...

Hello Ron! Yes, I would certainly agree with you on this. I have no objection to it either. Everyone has to make a living. Provided it is labelled as such - that's fine. Then we all know what we are getting. My objection comes with the disguise of a figure as 'fact', when actually it's made up...

"Some knowledge of the period"? Well, how about these (just so you know): (1) I work in a museum devoted to the Roman Army. (2) I have publications to my name on Roman armour. (3) I have a Master's degree in Roman and Celtic history. So, yes, I would say that I have 'some knowledge' of the...

Sorry to 'rain on the parade' - but this is NOT a figure (whatever the manufacturer may have labelled it as) from 180 BC. Neither can it be a 'Roman cavalry officer'. If it's anyhthing, it would be a tribune from the Imperial (Principate) period, i.e. from around the 1st and 2nd centuries AD...

The left hand head of the line-up looks like either Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus and I think one of the others is Vespasian (the one on the right). One of the middle ones may be Trajan but the light angle is wrong to be certain! It's a lovely figure (and Laruccia has got the way the toga...

Peter Wells book is not, IMO, a very good treatment of this campaign. It suffers from the defect that he has a particular axe to grind and makes everything fit this thesis. A much better book is the one written by the chap who actually discovered the site of the battle (or what is generally...

I don't think there is anything wrong with the helmet, per se. However, if he's supposed to be a centurion, then the crest should be transverse (side to side), not fore-and-aft as here. However, I doubt that the cuirass would have been made of iron. The Romans seem to have been incapable of...

Christos - the thickness of the armour plates is a common error on models. It's even worse on 54mm figures! It would be far better if the sculptor simply modelled a plain and smoothe chest/back and then scribed in some lines to represent the armour plates. They really were only a mm or two in...

Contrary to some of the views expressed above, I think that this is an awful figure - not because of the sculpting but because of the woeful research that is evident. I'm afraid that this manufacturer is prone to this sort of thing. Here are just a few of the errors that I can see. To begin...

These look like very nice figures (scale?) However, could I please make a plea that if you are considering adding to your range with more Roman Army figures that you consider moving away from the centurion/soldier/signifer area from the 1st/2nd century AD. Just about every manufacturer there is...

It's a great shame that, due to financial difficulties, this firm has ceased trading. They were really coming up with some interesting figures and they were also doing their research properly, before they put a figure into production. Most busts have only a few parts (between 1 and 4 as a rule)...

A few points: (1) The edge bindings on the shields were made of copper alloy (mainly brass, not bronze) - not iron. The attachment was by means of copper (nearly pure) rivets, which shows up as a quite distinct colour against the much more yellow colour of the bindings. (2) The background...

Two minor points: (a) The top plate of the shoulder guard armour is pointing the wrong way round. The point should be towards the neck, not away from it. This is what the Corbridge armour finds say. For those who may doubt, see Bishop, JRMES Monograph No.1, "Lorica segmentata, a handbook of...

It's dangerous to be dogmatic about 'who-wore-or-used-what' when talking about the Roman army. During the early Republic there were troops who used a stabbing spear, the hasta and where therefore known as 'hastatii' (literally, 'spearmen'). It's also clear from grave stelæ dating from the 1st...

The 'Chi-Rho' symbol (the first two letters of the Greek word 'Christos' = Christ, which looks like a superimposed 'X' and 'P' to us using the 'Latin' alphabet) was used from the middle of the 3rd century AD. It's use on this figure is probably too early. The Roman Empire became 'Christian' with...