>Medieval people imagined Roman legionaries as medieval knights
>>914096
Did they have no sense of archaeology?
>>914096
>>914110
They didn't really understand, they just figured armour had been the same. Not sure why they didn't go and look at Trajans column or any of the other monuments showing soldiers though. But then movies today get it totally fucking wrong so its mostly a case of only us historical autists giving a shit.
Look at renaissance and medieval art about Biblical themes, it has ancient Israelites straight up prancing around in renaissance garb and Jerusalem looking like Rome.
>>914118
Lorica Segmentata, in use 765 BC - 465 AD
>>914096
>that guy in catholic priest garb holding a crucificx
holy shit that just goes beyond retarded
>>914118
>mfw i can't watch a single historical movie without finding at least a couple of inaccuracies
Why don't I get hired as an "expert"??
>>914124
no. From probably 20BC to 350 or somerthing
>>914118
It's not like most artists could just wander off to Rome to research what actual ancient Roman stuff looked like.
>>914134
Same. They do hire historians, but the majority of historians have no clue or only a basic idea about equipment, they mostly know about the politics, so they just go sure thats Roman stuff.
This is one of the most accurate representations I've seen though. Shame about the quality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-Hcr4bB3U
Was it to make art more easily accesible to the masses as well? Also in a lot of medieval and rennesaince religious paintings the commisioner would have himself or his family painted in the scene as well, so I'm sure they're not supposed to be read literally.
>>914134
Because noone gives a shit and they wouldn't listen to your advice anyway.
>>914136
Its a silly m8.
He's pointing out that hollywood costume designers don't know anything about the history of the armor and would probably have put Romulus in Lorica Segmentata if anyone ever got the balls to do a movie about the Kingdom of Rome.
>>914142
Or they get overruled. Most costume designers opt for a balance between historical accuracy and what most people 'perceive' to be Roman. Most people see a dude in lorica segmentata as the archetypical 'Roman'.
>>914143
Possibly. Hand over a book full of "authentic" illustrations and the commissioner would probably say something like "It's very pretty, but what's going on? They don't look like any of the soldiers I've ever commanded. Their armour isn't right! Go back and draw them like proper, modern soldiers instead!".
It's hardly surprising given it was an era without any real unified practise of history. As several people have already pointed out, artists were not historians, and were generally going for something their patrons would find relatable. Renaissance artistis patrons were also rarely historical autists on an Albanian Ivory-Carving forum, so there would have been zero care-factor.
>>914173
Yes, but the fact that you even know the word 'scutum' suggests you have a greater knowledge of Roman military equipment than the average person. I mean, I know when I was younger I thought Roman soldiers were all clad in lorica segmentata, and I'm sure you probably did before you delved deeper into the topic. 40 years ago the typical roman was a dude in a leather cuirass with a big ass plume and red cloak.
>>914096
Fun fact: they know.
At least the ones living in Italy or Southern Europe knew.
But their knowledge is based of reaaaally basic shit.
>Ok so everyone is like in Robes.
>And the soldiers are like in this bandy armor thing.
>The generals have like muscled cuirasses.
>Oh! and dont forget the crest. Bitches love crests.
>Their shields are squarish.
>And their swords were short.
>Everyone used compound bows too
>And rode horses without stirrups.
Tada!
"Oh and lets put the Ancient Semites in Ottoman dress. Its what they wear over there in deserty regions yeah?"
>>914147
>He's pointing out that hollywood costume designers don't know anything about the history of the armor and would probably have put Romulus in Lorica Segmentata if anyone ever got the balls to do a movie about the Kingdom of Rome.
Nah.
That's all to save on costumes. Lorica Segmentata is enormously cheap to make with modern techniques, while hamata has that "300 manhours minimum needed" factor.
>>914188
40 years ago? Try next Friday.
Pic is from a new documentary about Cleopatra.
>>914244
I daresay it's more of a budget thing.
It wasn't to make it easy for people to identify with the religious works? Take things people are accustomed with, add it to some historical thing really long ago and make it easier for people to relate to whatever you are done.
Like how Jesus changes skin color wherever he goes.
>>914134
Lindybeige is mostly shit but he has one video when he tells about how those "historical advisors" work.
One market tons of shit from the original script showing what and how should it be changed. His points were never addressed.
When filming, he was asked about advice ONCE. It was about whether a banner-bearer should march in front, in the middle or at the back of the infantry formation. After he told them that it's cavalry banner. He was never asked about anything afterwards.
In majority of "historical" movies, historical advisers are only here as a marketing point.
>lorica segmentata
Isn't it crazy how a fucking French comic book completely influenced the common perception of ancient era
>>914096
What is artistic convention?
>>914188
>I know when I was younger I thought Roman soldiers were all clad in lorica segmentata,
fucking asterix.
>>914241
>while hamata has that "300 manhours minimum needed" factor
you only need a realistic one for closeups though, plenty of ways to make cheap fake chainmail for crowd scenes
>>914259
Probably because he was a prick about that one question.
>>914258
It extended to beyond religious works.
Pic related, three of the "Nine Worthies." Historical figures considered virtuous by Medieval Europe. These three being Hector of Troy, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar.
>>914311
If they wanted to listen in the first place they would do at least some changes from the original script.
>>914096
And Roman era Jews imagined David and Goliath and their attending warriors as Roman style legionnaires. So what?
So... what's up with the lorica segmentata?
Were they uncommon and reserved for higher ranking peeps in the army?
>>914385
They were too old to be remember properly by most of Medieval Yurop
>>914385
No, they're just used by specific Roman soldiers in a specific era but are used as armourning by every Roman ever.
Think depicting American soldiers in the War of 1812 AND 2003 Iraq, as American soldiers from 1968 Vietnam, because it looks cool and everyone recognised it as "an American soldier".
>>914385
Nobody really knows, and there's a few theories. It was once thought that it was reserved for legionnaires, and auxillaries used hamata, but then they found a few sets of it in an auxillary camp.
Personally, I'd say it was just never widely rolled out due to its cost and the high maintenance that went into it. Probably just given to units where and if it was available for a certain period of time, before use of it just died out all together. The same thing happens with modern armies, certain expensive/newer kit is only dolled out to certain units - even where it's slated for eventual widespread issue, it just never ends up happening due to logistical and economic reasons.
>>914402
See also: Coalition troops going into Iraq wearing a mishmash of desert and woodland uniforms and webbing.
>>914428
No problem, although mine is just a theory, I could be wrong. We have images (e.g. Trajan's column) which depict it, but also depict other armour types, and different sets have been found from the same periods, so it's really anyone's guess.
Lorica Hamata would have been the longest serving, with minor modifications every now and then.
>>914422
Ah the good old days, where you didn't have to wear a shirt and the magazine never stopped falling out your rifle
>>914436
That's what I've heard as well. But with Trajan's Column, it's important to remember that it depicts the Dacian Wars. We know from other sources that the legionaries had to be up-armoured during those wars to counter the Dacian falxes.
>>914226
But why was every other person buck naked?
>>914385
>>914402
From what I understand it was a bureaucratic decision made by the senate to pump out as much armor as fast as possible, and metal bands sewn together could be made much faster than a full shirt of mail in Roman armories.
But they were hard to maintain and a general nuisance compared to mail armor for the soldier on the battlefield, so it didn't last too long.
>>914134
They don't listen to the experts. The historian they hired for Gladiator quit halfway through production because she was sick of the director not paying attention to her pointing out the numerous errors.
>>914110
no. Archaeology itself is a 19th century word, and the recording and cataloguing of artefacts in an organised and academic way didn't happen til the 16th century really
>>914096
>>914121
That's because religious art is designed to communicate a theme, not to be a historical respresentation. Biblical characters are archetypes so the artist depicts the relevant from their era (i.e. the average medieval church goer isn't going to know what a Roman legionarie is, so the artist just depicts soldiers from their time period because what matters is that there were military men who scourged Jesus, it doesn't matter what specific type of military men whether legionnaire or knight or whatever)
>>914121
The artist as the martyr. Very cunning.
>>914499
It wasn't socially acceptable to depict nudes unless you were depicting a Greek /Roman pagan scene or event. So artists did a lot of scenes of antiquity.
>>914147
didn't the Romans switch largely to chain-male in the 5th century?
>>914142
Can anyone else take a look at that vid and judge it? The stock sound effects kinda ruined it for me, but maybe it's good or bad on other counts.
>Medieval artists painted Jesus as white
>>915026
Same principle as the armor. If everyone you've ever known beyond maybe an odd trader has been a pasty Northern European, why would you assume God in human form would be any different?
archeology started only during renaissance, and even then most of artist didn't have physical access to the ancient armors, it wasn't like nowaday that with google you can document yourself.
also, majority of hollywood historic film made a lot of costume mistakes, with all the infinite documentations we have today.
so i dont see why 500 years they should be more accurate.
also, in a lot of cases (caravaggio)depicting romans and ancient soldiers with medieval armor was a choice, for example to pass the message that bible stories were still valid and contemporary
>>914313
I hope there's a great cataclysm where lots of historical detail is lost so the people from the future will depict caesar as a six-limbed syntheto-construct and plato as a plasma-engine cyborg mark .;,¤..¤.
>>915155
I don't. I want future people to invent an observation-only time machine so they can get insanely accurate with their historical stuff. Or forgo filming documentaries and just go around filming history as it happened.
>>915200
That's for the future-future people to do, but first we must have the great religious civil wars over if Jesus was the father of Confucius or Pepe the frog-man (frog-men being genetically created some 700 years ago), so the future-future people can make a great comedy about it.
>>914134
Imagine how much better Alexander would've been if Oliver decided to listen to some Iranian historians for example.
>>914226
>That man in the center left who went into battle bottomless but still remembered to equip his cuirass and helmet.
My sides
>>914096
Literally everyone back then (pre 19th century) depicted shit that way
>>914313
All medieval works make people look like very hardened and weather washed.
You don't think Greek artists really though soldiers went into battle naked do you?
Art has always been art first and history second. It's supposed to look good and appeal to the masses. Not to be a recreation of how it really was.
>>917678
Most people back then were.
