LUCIUS LIVIUS, CENTURION LEGION XI VINDONISSA (69 AC) (Scale75)

[Johan Kees]

Painting a shield is not the same as painting a plaster wall though. So it's a chemistry question. Based on what I have seen so far, I have to assume Johan has it right.

As I wrote earlier about the intensity of the colour, all depended on the wealth of the person who bought a coloured item. The wealthier, the more intense dyed items could be purchased. Legionaries were not that well paid at all, so one can reasonably state that the colours used to paint their shields were of a lower quality than let us say, the dyes or paints used for amongst others the frescos in the homes of Pompeii's upperclass. All in all, would it be too far fetched to assume that legionaries used plant or other natural extracts dissolved in water, oils, etc., with as a result low chroma colours and rapid fading? I remember having read that, while on campaign, the English Victorian soldiers stained their white helmets with tea to make them stand out less. I can imagine that the Roman poor and soldier's class did something similar, meaning to use readily available, or makeshift coloured solutions.

Then about the shield designs itself. One must not forget that depictions of legionaries on triumphal arches and columns are always idealized images and also very likely interpretations of the craftsmen involved. It is not because there are shield designs visible on Trajan's column (completed in the early second century AD) that these were standard practice for the whole of republican and imperial Roman rule, spanning several centuries. Of course, absence of proof is no proof of absence, of that I am aware.

Nevertheless, IMHO it would not be unlogical to suggest that while on campaign, shield designs were the least of the legionary's worries as there were many, heavy camp duties to perform. Moreover, I cannot imagine that some legion's housepainter took care to restore damaged or faded designs of the many hundreds of shields in use. There simply would not have been enough time for it. As such, I stick to the idea that applying shield designs was not a common practice at all while at war, but that these might have been applied solely for the thriumphal marches in Rome once the engaged enemy was defeated. Hence the depiction of shield designs on the thriumphal arches and columns.

However, and with this I will rest my case, a miniature of a Roman legionary, centurion, etc. looks not complete without a nicely painted shield design. But then we are talking about artistry and idealistic views of the subject of our interest, not about historical correctness.

Jhan

 

[Gaudin]

Lets also not forget that shield is a relatively disposable item, that is guaranteed to be damaged, so why spend money on getting expensive colours. Unless some imperial/ ceremonial regiment where money isnt an issue, appearance is in job description and shield isnt likely to see any use. (I will echo what Johan said as I typed this before fully reading his post ) Or the evidence of that expensive pattern is a deliberate exageration of ancient artist comissioned to make it look like certain triumphator had it all.

One thing I am more convinced now is that most gladiator shields we see in miniature are fantasy. It would appear that evidence ovewhelmingly shows shields were white or ochre, very rarely red or blue with some occasional sketchy floral motiffs or geometrical patterns, but apparently no animalistic paterns. Sergei Shamenkov did a brilliant review with dosens of artifacts and images on modelsculpt recently and that man is the most meticulous rivet counter I have ever seen...His take is that most of the patterns on the shields of legioners is exageration on celebratory art, like triumphal arches etc and otherwise plain or with basic geometric patterns. With some exceptiobs of course, there are scorpions for guard units and its not implausible for legions have a crude image of their regimental animal.
I am inclined to believe him as he knows his stuff and can illustrate his points extensively. I reccomend his articles to any one willing to dwell deeper into the subject.

But, like Johan says, historicaly accurate figures may have not enough about them to win a show, figures with artistic license make history enthusiasts spit feathers Its a circle of life....

 

[Colin_Fraser]

Interesting Dimitry. I tend to agree but it's based intuition rather than knowledge.

 

[Martin64]

As far as I know the Trajan Column is fairly exact about many details of Roman soldiers but a lot we believe to know about these times is good guesswork. The image of Roman soldiers has changed remarkably throughout the past 150 years.
As a soldier in a Roman Legion at the Germanic border you would live in a castell miles behind the border which was guarded by auxiliaries. In case of an operation you would move out and return to the castell as soon as your job was done. Compared with the auxiliaries your pay, rations and living conditions would be a lot better. I can imagine that the painted shields had a psychological impact when the leather covers were removed for battle.
But I agree that the shaded 3D-designs we see on many models are most likely too artsy for the average soldier back then. Still the reenactors are backed by results of historians like Dr. Makus Junkelmann who pioneered the experimental archaelogy by marching with a column fitted out as Imperial Legionaries from Rome to Augsburg or riding along the Limes from the North sea to Aalen fitted out as Roman Cavalry. All the equipment they wore was created as close as possible to original finds applying original methods.
Anyway I did not try to prove who is right or wrong but just offered some ideas.
Cheers, Martin