Osprey Books?

[Thanas]

Here is the direct quote, from page 63 of Imperial Roman Legionary 161-284AD:

The Praetorians [depicted on the cover and in a plate in the book] are attempting to capture II Parthica's aquila, actually a live eagle in a cage! This is shown on the funerary relief of Felsonius Verus, aquilifer of II Parthica who died during Gordian III's Parthian War (AE 1991: 1572).

So, according to this cite, I would see a relief of a live eagle in the cage, right? Wrong.
In fact, the whole AE article cited does not contain one single picture of the relief. Here it is, - the entire AE article.



All the article contains is a mention of an eagle in a cage, but nowhere is it stated to be a live eagle.

However, the article mentions three other articles which do in fact contain photos. So here we have the first thing - their original citation does not include any pictures at all. So from where did they get their picture of the eagle? This answer is easy. From the other articles cited in the AE article. However, do they give those articles any credit? No, they do not. They simply mention a general AE article. This is bad form. It would be akin to me writing about the performance of a legion in a specific battle and then only cite a general work while the real information is found in an article that is only cited in the general work itself, but not mentioning it.

So let's take a look at the articles. The second and third one by Prof. Balty are general articles about the city of Apamea. I was unable to find the second one in such a short time, but the third one in the Journal of Roman studies (JRS) only mentions the aquila in passing in two instances:

Page 99:

Most of the stones bear figures of the soldiers, [...] the aquilifer holds the eagle; in the left hand of another soldier of indeterminate ranks hangs a sort of casket[....]

Page 101:

Fewer principales are known: I have already mentioned two tesserarii [...], two aquiliferi - one unfortunately undated, the other in AD 242-4 (the eagle he holds is a very strange and aberrrant model of an aquila, which deserves more study); there are a tubicen[...]

So, as his article of 1988 calls for further study, he has certainly not come to a definite conclusion in the article of 1987, which means that the authors of the book could not have had found such a definite conclusion by him in this or the other article.

The definite article would therefore be by Oliver Stoll, "Der Adler im "Käfig". Zu einer Aquilifer-Grabstelle aus Apamea in Syrien", in: Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt XXI, 1991, pg. 535-538. (The eagle in the "cage". Regarding a Aquilifer funerary relief from Apamea in Syria).

And this article does indeed have high-detailed pictures of the whole relief, with the inscription and the surroundings. (One should note that these pictures were made by Prof. Balty, who Stoll thanks for his comments and help in the article).

The Osprey people however, in the second book Elfdart linked to, edited out the surroundings and the inscription text - without giving credit to Prof. Balty or Stoll at all on the page they printed the picture. It may very well be that they do in another part of the book, as I do not have access to those pages, but needless to say not even including a small note of authorship like "Photo by: Marc Balty" is very bad form IMO. The book Imperial legionary 262-284 does include Balty's publication in the Bibliography, but does not mention Stoll at all.

Why did the author exclude Stoll? Did he "forget" to include Stoll's publication because it absolutely destroys his assumptions about a live eagle? Maybe it is because the author could not read german and Balty's publication is the only one written in English, but if this is the case, why are other german works cited in the bibliography? Whatever the reasons, to exclude the only article who discusses the relief in detail at all and then claim a definite conclusion is certainly not good scholarship.

But let's take a look at the article. Directly on the first page of the article (pg. 535), Stoll writes: (Translation from german to english by me, any mistakes are due to my translation and not to Stoll)

The assumption of this being a real depiction of a cage can be dismissed due to several reasons[...]

Stoll then goes on to dismiss the argument that it was a real cage due to religious reasons. He then goes on to argue that real roman birdcages look different according to surviving depictions and gives over 12 citations for that in a footnote, which I will not repeat here due to brevity. Suffice to say that not a single roman birdcage looked like that.

(Note by me: Even birdcages used by the legions looked different - for example, here is one from a reconstruction of another monument.


A roman birdcage used in the legions, here for the hens used to divine the will of the gods.)


Dr. Stoll then goes on to say:

The container seems to have fulfilled two reasons: First to protect the valuable symbol and second to still show the eagle [...]. On the march or in battle, on parade and other official occasions this type of carrying the eagle would most likely not have been used. The same kind of protection would have been unnecessary in a fortified camp, since the eagle would have been protected there within the principia, in the aedes aquilae and guarded by honor guards. However, at this time the legio II parthica was not at its standard camp, which was in Italy, but on campaign and being stationed in winter quarters.
How would the [bronze/golden] eagle have been protected from damage in marching camps or in temporary camps without real buildings? Shouldn't [the troops] have used a container that was easy to carry and still were able to display the eagle [to the soldiers]?

He then cites a passage by Cassius Dio in support of his theory, which I will show here as well:

One portent had to do with the so‑called "eagle" of the army. It is a small shrine and in it perches a golden eagle. It is found in all the enrolled legions, and it is never moved from the winter-quarters unless the whole army takes the field; one man carries it on a long shaft, which ends in a sharp spike so that it can be set firmly in the ground.[...]

(Cassius Dio 40,18, translation taken from here.) I won't bother you with the greek text, as this is not a real review that is going to be published.

Therefore, it is most likely that this is not a cage at all, but a shrine to protect the eagle during march and during winter. It most certainly is not a live eagle.

(Stepping off from the article here to elaborate on why the theory of the live eagle would be nonsensical even without the passage by Dio: The eagle was the embodiment of the roman legion. If it was lost or destroyed, the legion itself ceased to exist and every legionary lost his entire life savings. Now, how likely do you think that the legionnaires would have entrusted their entire life and status to some animal that could be slain by a single arrow? Remember that the eagle was carried in battle, even in the first line on numerous occasions, where it would be directly exposed to enemy projectiles. The fighting around the eagle was also usually the heaviest in pitched battles. And the "cage" is not a good protection against projectiles at all, as there are huge gaps between the "bars". The eagle was also supposed to be a rallying symbol. How much impact a subdued eagle in a box would have had compared to a golden, shining eagle depicted as screaming its defiance at the enemy, the symbol of the might of Jupiter and Rome itself?

There is also the non-trivial matter of carrying a live eagle. First, you have to catch one. Then, you have to feed and care for it. Eagles and small cages do not mix at all. Also, do you really think roman soldiers would haven enjoyed a shrieking eagle in battle when nerves are already pushed to the breaking point? Furthermore, there is not a single source at all that speaks of a live eagle being used as some kind of sign.)

Now, the Osprey author clearly knew of the existence of this essay. In the reference he gave himself this essay was cited right at the top as the definite essay on the subject. It is too bad that this essay did not agree with his pet theory of it being a live eagle. Nevertheless, it is the only academic publication which talks about the eagle in detail. And the Osprey author did not read it or not include it.

Let me remind you of the words of the author:

The Praetorians are attempting to capture II Parthica's aquila, actually a live eagle in a cage! This is shown on the funerary relief of Felsonius Verus, aquilifer of II Parthica who died during Gordian III's Parthian War (AE 1991: 1572).

Really?

Let us summarize:
- the original reference he gave does not contain any picture of a life eagle, nor does it talk about a life eagle at all. The Osprey author is claiming both.
- the AE article he references does however include a reference to articles with pictures. Nowhere are those articles given any credit at all by the Osprey author when talking about the depiction.
- There is no evidence at all among literary sources of Romans ever using a live eagle. Nor is there any other evidence of a live eagle being used as a legionary aquila.
- In fact, the primary article concerning the eagle demolishes such a theory in full. The Osprey author was clearly aware of the existence of the article, but he apparently never cared to read it or even discuss the findings, instead choosing to not mention them at all.
- Despite the lack of evidence to support his position and despite the existence of an article which disproves his theory, he claims: "The Praetorians are attempting to capture II Parthica's aquila, actually a live eagle in a cage!" and then goes on to say: "This is shown on the funerary relief of Felsonius Verus, aquilifer of II Parthica who died during Gordian III's Parthian War (AE 1991: 1572)", thereby giving the illusion the AE article would support his theory. It does not and a simple check would have revealed this.

This casts severe doubt on the rest of his work - after all, when one is so shoddy with the centerpiece of the work (for the live eagle is not only depicted on the cover, no, it is also repeated in the text and shown as the center plate), how much should one trust the rest of his work? I have not started to look into the rest of the book, but I fear that if I should do so, I will find a whole myriad of exaggerations, misinterpretations or false claims.

What is more, this casts severe doubts about the ability of the Osprey editing staff. Even someone who had read a single work on the roman army should have noticed the fact that a live eagle would have been unusual and had checked the arguments for that. It took me five minutes to check the AE article and then read the article by Stoll. A editor who is supposedly more well-versed in the subject of proofreading and checking citations than me (I am not professionally employed in such a capacity) should have caught this.

But they did not and still continue to sell this book with the same cover.

Elfdart generously provided me with a quote from the author. Here it is:

If I had the chance, I'd make changes to all of the plates in my three Osprey books, the problem being my designs rather than the artists' work. However, I think that plate F of Roman Legionary turned out rather well (Teutoburg scene) - and Angus McBride created that from what was a fairly vague outline. I also like plate F of Imperial Roman Legionary (II Parthica vs. Praetorians in AD 218), though I will concede that I should have specified helmets for the soldiers, the shield blazons are too speculative and I dislike the way Angus McBride put II Parthica's eagle in what looks like an over-sized budgie cage, rather than the type of cage depicted on the tombstone of Felsonius Verus.

Note that nowhere does he mention the error he made - in fact, it seems as if he still does not recognize he even made one. I have to say, making such an error in good faith is very damaging already.

Making such an error because one did not bother to read even one article on the subject and then not mentioning even the existence of this article, instead giving a phony citation, is unforgivable and the author should apologize both to the readers and the authors of the AE article as well as Prof. Balty and Priv. Doz. Dr. O. Stoll for projecting the appearance of their articles backing up his claim.

[Elfdart]

However, you points did nothing to address why was it possible for Museums to do a better job in terms of reconstructing the armours worn by the ancient armies than the Osprey books.

It's like you are arguing that just because reconstructing ancient armours and all that is hard, we need to give leeways to the artist and the authors, never mind the fact that other people are able to do a much better than them.

One, I don't make that claim. In fact I've seen a number of museum exhibits where the restorations were pretty bad, and not just on artistic grounds. To the extent that some museums (like the one Thanas linked to) seem to be accurate is because they usually have the real artifact in their possession, so they're not working from a photo or from memory.

This is fucking idiotic if you ask me.

Yes, you are.

Are you dumb or what? Since when is cutting corners ever justifiable in any books that seeks to provide historical information to the general public at large?

When it's meant to be a guide for people painting toy soldiers, with some historical information added.

It's like saying History books should be allowed to cut out chunks of details in regards to the Historical period they are addressing just because it will make the book too thick.

You are one dumb twat. EVERY history books leaves out details. It is physically impossible to include them all in one book. The only issue is whether the omission leaves a false impression.

[Thanas]

Are you actually going to respond to my points?

[Elfdart]

As I pointed out before, the chances of actually doing a "precise" restoration are practically zero. Even with a literate society like ancient Rome with large amounts of artifacts and contemporary artwork, the experts still argue about how the lorica segmentata and the later lamellar armors were fastened and worn.

Getting a precise restoration of a person is also impossible without some speculation and guesswork, as the Meet the Ancestors show proved time and again when they brought in forensics experts who specialized in restoring human remains for the police. Things like weight, eye color, complexion, hair color and style, and in many cases, clothing were at best educated guesses because such things are seldom preserved in archaeological finds.

That is a valid point, but this is left up to the writer of technical documentation to speculate, not the artist. He should do his job without invoking any speculation that he has no authority to make. At least I thought so. Perhaps the incorrect specifications given by the writer were the reason of an artists' errors. Still, the errors Thanas details look pretty glaring.

Maybe they are, but that's not proof of dishonesty on the part of the author or artist.

Yeah, but isn't it exactly a case where the artist pulled things out of his ass ("speculated") without any basis in the writer's or whoever was providing the technical information, instructions?

I also don't think the artist is necessarily in the wrong when there's a discrepancy, even if he does have unmistakable instructions from the write. Sometimes the artist catches onto something that the author does not. This is especially true for artists who have done in-depth study of anatomy (human and animal). One example is restoration of extinct animals, which is similar to reconstructing archaeological remains of ancient people. One in particular (Ouranosaurus, a large plant-eater) was described and depicted as having a large "sail" on its back until a decade ago when artists noted that the spines were very similar to the upper vertebrae of a bison and that the "sail" was actually an anchor for a large shoulder hump.

That is correct. Things such as style, etc. are the artists' discretion. However as I gather the debate centers around a real error w/ the eagle, which was never meant to be a live eagle or something?

Apparently that's the issue stuck in Thanas' craw. See my response to his post below.

That is just a technical error and has no relevance to the issues of artistic license such as style, hairstyle, skin color and other minutiae that the (well-informed) artist picks to the best of his or her knowledge...

Thanas thinks it's not only beyond dispute that it wasn't a real bird in a cage or box, but the very idea is preposterous and for the author or illustrator to depict such a thing brings ill repute not only to themselves, but to the entire publishing house. Since I'm not prone to hysterics about this sort of thing, I'm willing to admit that I have no idea what exactly is depicted on the tombstone of a man who had been dead for @1800 years. For all I know the engraving could have nothing to do with anything in real life, but with the afterlife. Is it really so absurd that a Roman might have kept a live eagle as a mascot or pet or conversation piece?

[Thanas]

Thanas thinks it's not only beyond dispute that it wasn't a real bird in a cage or box, but the very idea is preposterous and for the author or illustrator to depict such a thing brings ill repute not only to themselves, but to the entire publishing house. Since I'm not prone to hysterics about this sort of thing, I'm willing to admit that I have no idea what exactly is depicted on the tombstone of a man who had been dead for @1800 years.

Did you even read my post? At all? Respond to my points or retract the statement made above.

For all I know the engraving could have nothing to do with anything in real life, but with the afterlife. Is it really so absurd that a Roman might have kept a live eagle as a mascot or pet or conversation piece?

You have no knowledge on roman reliefs, do you? Every tombstone of a Roman soldier depicts his rank and the insignia of his profession.

Where is your source about Roman epigraphy?

You are grasping at straws here. You are arguing against a direct literary source, you have nothing to back you up and the source they cited does not back up anything of their points.

[Elfdart]

Here is the direct quote, from page 63 of Imperial Roman Legionary 161-284AD:

The Praetorians [depicted on the cover and in a plate in the book] are attempting to capture II Parthica's aquila, actually a live eagle in a cage! This is shown on the funerary relief of Felsonius Verus, aquilifer of II Parthica who died during Gordian III's Parthian War (AE 1991: 1572).

So, according to this cite, I would see a relief of a live eagle in the cage, right? Wrong.

So the author cited an article that mentions a photo of Verus' tombstone and the eagle in a cage and takes it at face value. This proves what, exactly? Now my French is piss poor so correct me if I'm wrong, but does the AE article mention that the eagle is a totem, standard or similar item? If it does, you have a point. If not, it simply shows the author took the article as given. Not exactly rigorous research, but not proof of dishonesty on his part, either.

In fact, the whole AE article cited does not contain one single picture of the relief. Here it is, - the entire AE article.



All the article contains is a mention of an eagle in a cage, but nowhere is it stated to be a live eagle.

Does it mention the eagle being a statuette or similar object?

However, the article mentions three other articles which do in fact contain photos. So here we have the first thing - their original citation does not include any pictures at all. So from where did they get their picture of the eagle? This answer is easy. From the other articles cited in the AE article. However, do they give those articles any credit? No, they do not.

You don't cite or credit articles if you never read them.

They simply mention a general AE article. This is bad form. It would be akin to me writing about the performance of a legion in a specific battle and then only cite a general work while the real information is found in an article that is only cited in the general work itself, but not mentioning it.

Take a look at the engraving on the tombstone. The bird is in a cage or box with two bars (for lack of a better term) crossing to make a letter X. The cage/box depicted in the color plate is very different -with vertical bars in this pattern III. I would say that the artist didn't use the engraving itself, but just the general description of an eagle in a cage. Given that the author didn't point out this particular change until after the book was published, I'd say he didn't go by the engraving either. That's not evidence of falsifying research, it's evidence they took one generic source at face value, meaning that a large chunk of what you wrote below and which I'm about to (cover your eyes, Ray245!) snip for irrelevance is based on a faulty assumption: the idea that Cowan and/or McBride lied about the source(s) they used.

The Osprey people however, in the second book Elfdart linked to, edited out the surroundings and the inscription text - without giving credit to Prof. Balty or Stoll at all on the page they printed the picture. It may very well be that they do in another part of the book,

In other words, you don't know if they gave credit or not. Not that it matters, you're now discussing a book written by a different author.

Now, the Osprey author clearly knew of the existence of this essay.

Do you have any evidence he read it or used its contents?

In the reference he gave himself this essay was cited right at the top as the definite essay on the subject. It is too bad that this essay did not agree with his pet theory of it being a live eagle. Nevertheless, it is the only academic publication which talks about the eagle in detail. And the Osprey author did not read it or not include it.

If he didn't read it, he couldn't have used the material therein now could he?

Let me remind you of the words of the author:

The Praetorians are attempting to capture II Parthica's aquila, actually a live eagle in a cage! This is shown on the funerary relief of Felsonius Verus, aquilifer of II Parthica who died during Gordian III's Parthian War (AE 1991: 1572).

Really?

So he read one brief article and misconstrued what it meant. This proves dishonesty, how?

Let us summarize:
- the original reference he gave does not contain any picture of a life eagle, nor does it talk about a life eagle at all. The Osprey author is claiming both.

Wrong. It mentions an eagle. Prove where the AE article itself refers to this eagle as a symbol and not a real bird.

- the AE article he references does however include a reference to articles with pictures. Nowhere are those articles given any credit at all by the Osprey author when talking about the depiction.

You don't give credit to articles you never read.

- There is no evidence at all among literary sources of Romans ever using a live eagle. Nor is there any other evidence of a live eagle being used as a legionary aquila.

Maybe that's why the author responded thusly when I asked him about it yesterday:

Hello,

The gravestone of Felsonius Verus, aquilifer of legio II Parthica in AD 242/44, shows him holding a standard topped by what appears to be a cage (with X-shaped crossbars) with an eagle in it. This may have been intended to represent a live eagle in a cage, or the gold aquila of the legion in a portable shrine. I would now lean towards the latter interpretation.

You can see a sketch of Felsonius Verus and his odd standard in Graham Sumners’ book, ‘Roman Military Clothing, AD 200-400′.

Cheers,

Ross

So Stoll is right after all, but it appears Cowan was using Graham Sumner's book as his source.

- In fact, the primary article concerning the eagle demolishes such a theory in full. The Osprey author was clearly aware of the existence of the article,

That's some slippery prose there. I'm "aware of the existence of" Glenn Beck's new book. But since I never read the book, let alone cited the book or its contents...

but he apparently never cared to read it or even discuss the findings, instead choosing to not mention them at all.

Because you don't cite books you never read -that would be fraud.

- Despite the lack of evidence to support his position and despite the existence of an article which disproves his theory, he claims: "The Praetorians are attempting to capture II Parthica's aquila, actually a live eagle in a cage!" and then goes on to say: "This is shown on the funerary relief of Felsonius Verus, aquilifer of II Parthica who died during Gordian III's Parthian War (AE 1991: 1572)", thereby giving the illusion the AE article would support his theory. It does not and a simple check would have revealed this.

This isn't a summary, it's a broken record.

This casts severe doubt on the rest of his work - after all, when one is so shoddy with the centerpiece of the work (for the live eagle is not only depicted on the cover, no, it is also repeated in the text and shown as the center plate), how much should one trust the rest of his work? I have not started to look into the rest of the book, but I fear that if I should do so, I will find a whole myriad of exaggerations, misinterpretations or false claims.

At least he got the number for the legion right.

What is more, this casts severe doubts about the ability of the Osprey editing staff. Even someone who had read a single work on the roman army should have noticed the fact that a live eagle would have been unusual and had checked the arguments for that. It took me five minutes to check the AE article and then read the article by Stoll.

Of course it helps that you can read the language in which the article is written. As Christian Bale would say: "Good for you!"

A editor who is supposedly more well-versed in the subject of proofreading and checking citations than me (I am not professionally employed in such a capacity) should have caught this.

I doubt the editors have any say in the illustrations. I also doubt they did anything more than look to see if the citations in fact were accurate. The error about the eagle really does stick out like a sore thumb now, but you are making one leap in logic after another. Why should an author apologize to someone he didn't read and didn't cite? If you can show me proof of where Cowan actually used Stoll's work without attribution, or that he read it and ignored it, I'll concede every letter your posts. Hell, I'll concede that the earth is flat just for good measure. But so far you've only demonstrated that Cowan took a flimsy article much too literally and there's no prize for that.

[Thanas]

So the author cited an article that mentions a photo of Verus' tombstone and the eagle in a cage and takes it at face value. This proves what, exactly? Now my French is piss poor so correct me if I'm wrong, but does the AE article mention that the eagle is a totem, standard or similar item? If it does, you have a point. If not, it simply shows the author took the article as given. Not exactly rigorous research, but not proof of dishonesty on his part, either.

The word eagle when used with the word aquilifer and with the legionary number given on a tombstone always means the legionary eagle, aka the golden eagle of the legion. There is no other interpretation possible (especially when the latin inscription talks about the person whose job is to hold a legionary eagle and the latin text does not mention any other eagles at all nor does it even mention that this was a special eagle).

As for a translation of the words in the AE, nowhere does it talk about a live eagle. It says simply that the inscription is not interesting for the text, but interesting because of the eagle being depicted in a cage. I don't see why one would automatically come to the conclusion of this being a live eagle. Certainly not in the context and one would certainly not immediately pronounce it as dead certain that this is a live eagle and then cite the article as proof for that when it does not say that. In fact, the only thing the text says is: legionary eagle depicted in a cage makes this interesting, the text of the inscription does not (paraphrasing). It is one throwaway line. You do not make such a statement on that. If he did - without anything backing him up - than that is a very lax standard of evidence at play here.

It is not like you need to be a genius to have doubts about this issue either. The objections I raised above -

The eagle was the embodiment of the roman legion. If it was lost or destroyed, the legion itself ceased to exist and every legionary lost his entire life savings. Now, how likely do you think that the legionnaires would have entrusted their entire life and status to some animal that could be slain by a single arrow? Remember that the eagle was carried in battle, even in the first line on numerous occasions, where it would be directly exposed to enemy projectiles. The fighting around the eagle was also usually the heaviest in pitched battles. And the "cage" is not a good protection against projectiles at all, as there are huge gaps between the "bars". The eagle was also supposed to be a rallying symbol. How much impact a subdued eagle in a box would have had compared to a golden, shining eagle depicted as screaming its defiance at the enemy, the symbol of the might of Jupiter and Rome itself?

There is also the non-trivial matter of carrying a live eagle. First, you have to catch one. Then, you have to feed and care for it. Eagles and small cages do not mix at all. Also, do you really think roman soldiers would have enjoyed a shrieking eagle in battle when nerves are already pushed to the breaking point? Furthermore, there is not a single source at all that speaks of a live eagle being used as some kind of standard.

- should have occurred to anybody familiar with the matter of Roman legions. You just need common sense and rudimentary knowledge of how a legion works and fights.

Archeological evidence is very flimsy. Here is what a professional would have done - first, he would have looked at the picture. Then, he would have looked at literary sources, both primary and secondary. And only after an exhaustive search this would have then resulted in any kind of interpretation.

If the author is not an expert in the field - then why the heck does he not read the articles given in the AE before coming to a conclusion (come to think of it, why even write such a book if one is not an expert in the area?)? It is not like those are tremendous articles - the first one has 2 pages of text, the third one has 13 pages of text (I don't know about the second one). So - are you saying that this was some kind of herculean effort to do so? If you read a summary and the summary is not certain of anything, should you not read the articles before coming to such a major conclusion?

Now, admittedly, me accusing the author of being duplicit may be too harsh and unsupported by the evidence and I'll withdraw that accusation right now and concede that particular point. I can only say that the possibility that someone actually would not read cited sources when the description was not saying anything on the subject had honestly not occurred to me. In fact, I still find it hard to believe. It goes against everything that is taught in the universities - you always factcheck if the original summary does not mention it. So he is not a liar, but someone who does very bad research.

And if he used the description by Sumner - where does he ever mention a live eagle? I am genuinely asking, I have not read his book. You apparently did, please point out where he mentions a live eagle. In which case Sumner is to blame for such a huge mistake, but only partially because Cowan should still have checked. In any case, this is an error that should not have happened and would not have happened had there been quality proofreading and quality fact-checking or if anybody had simply bothered to wait a minute and ask if this makes sense at all.

And if he could not read the german article, why not simply phone the person who wrote it? It is not like the phone number is any secret. And countless journalists pick up the phone and call an expert to comment on an idea of theirs. Getting real advice is very easy. Why did this not happen? I know at least five historians who have given free advice in this regard in this year alone, so this is certainly not impossible.

Now, it appears by your quote that Cowan has reversed his position on the eagle. This is good news and probably means that he was genuinely not aware of the article, but still does not exactly fill me with confidence regarding his abilites.

EDIT: Why has your link disappeared, Elfdart? Whenever I click on it, I am being forwarded to a blank comment section.

In any case, you have already implicitly conceded the point - that Osprey books should not be used in any academic manner at all. If you do not agree with that, then I would like to hear your argument why such work should be allowed to be used in that manner.

But so far you've only demonstrated that Cowan took a flimsy article much too literally and there's no prize for that.

It would have only been able for him to take it literally if the words "live eagle" would be in the french text. They are not.

[Elfdart]

So the author cited an article that mentions a photo of Verus' tombstone and the eagle in a cage and takes it at face value. This proves what, exactly? Now my French is piss poor so correct me if I'm wrong, but does the AE article mention that the eagle is a totem, standard or similar item? If it does, you have a point. If not, it simply shows the author took the article as given. Not exactly rigorous research, but not proof of dishonesty on his part, either.

The word eagle when used with the word aquilifer and with the legionary number given on a tombstone always means the legionary eagle, aka the golden eagle of the legion. There is no other interpretation possible (especially when the latin inscription talks about the person whose job is to hold a legionary eagle and the latin text does not mention any other eagles at all nor does it even mention that this was a special eagle).

In that case it's at best a blunder showing a real lack of expertise on the subject.

- should have occurred to anybody familiar with the matter of Roman legions. You just need common sense and rudimentary knowledge of how a legion works and fights.

I can't dispute any thing you've written from this point on, except for:

Now, admittedly, me accusing the author of being duplicit may be too harsh and unsupported by the evidence and I'll withdraw that accusation right now and concede that particular point. I can only say that the possibility that someone actually would not read cited sources when the description was not saying anything on the subject had honestly not occurred to me. In fact, I still find it hard to believe. It goes against everything that is taught in the universities - you always factcheck if the original summary does not mention it. So he is not a liar, but someone who does very bad research.

That was more or less my position, until I realized Cowan deleted my posts on his WordPress blog asking about his basis for the eagle.

EDIT: Why has your link disappeared, Elfdart? Whenever I click on it, I am being forwarded to a blank comment section.

But then I remembered that a response on WordPress generates an e-mail, so I checked mine:

Hello,

The gravestone of Felsonius Verus, aquilifer of legio II Parthica in AD 242/44, shows him holding a standard topped by what appears to be a cage (with X-shaped crossbars*) and an eagle in it. Now, this may have been intended to represent a live eagle in a cage, or the gold aquila on the legion in a portable shrine. I would now lean towards the latter interpretation.

* Typically, Angus McBride chose to ignore the source material I supplied.

You can see a sketch of Felsonius Verus and his odd standard in Graham Sumners' 'Roman Military Clothing, AD 200-400'. The relevant page is available to view on Google Books. The sketch was supposed to be included in Imperial Roman Legionary, but the editors at Osprey decided to leave it out.

Cheers,

Ross
Ross Cowan, MA, PhD, FSA Scot

The part with the asterisk was not in the blog post but was in the e-mail he sent me.

Author: Ross Cowan
Comment:
Hello,

The gravestone of Felsonius Verus, aquilifer of legio II Parthica in AD 242/44, shows him holding a standard topped by what appears to be a cage (with X-shaped crossbars) and an eagle in it. This may have been intended to represent a live eagle in a cage, or the gold aquila of the legion in a portable shrine. I would now lean towards the latter interpretation.

You can see a sketch of Felsonius Verus and his odd standard in Graham Sumners' book, 'Roman Military Clothing, AD 200-400'.

Cheers,

Ross

When I asked if Romans ever used live animals as mascots, he responded:

Hello again,

Re. live animal mascots -- not that I know of. There's plenty of evidence for soldiers being involved in the supply of animals for the beast shows in Rome and elsewhere in the empire, so it's possible some were retained as mascots, but the Romans had a nasty habit of sacrificing any symbolic creatures to the gods.

Cheers,

Ross
Ross Cowan, MA, PhD, FSA Scot

My questions and his first response were on his blog this morning, so they were deleted sometime this afternoon. Now why would he do that?

I suspect he's a bullshitter and found the questions uncomfortable. Notice how he blames the editors, and Angus MacBride, who died two years ago.

In any case, you have already implicitly conceded the point - that Osprey books should not be used in any academic manner at all. If you do not agree with that, then I would like to hear your argument why such work should be allowed to be used in that manner.

Since I keep my word: The earth is also flat.

[Thanas]

So the author cited an article that mentions a photo of Verus' tombstone and the eagle in a cage and takes it at face value. This proves what, exactly? Now my French is piss poor so correct me if I'm wrong, but does the AE article mention that the eagle is a totem, standard or similar item? If it does, you have a point. If not, it simply shows the author took the article as given. Not exactly rigorous research, but not proof of dishonesty on his part, either.

The word eagle when used with the word aquilifer and with the legionary number given on a tombstone always means the legionary eagle, aka the golden eagle of the legion. There is no other interpretation possible (especially when the latin inscription talks about the person whose job is to hold a legionary eagle and the latin text does not mention any other eagles at all nor does it even mention that this was a special eagle).

In that case it's at best a blunder showing a real lack of expertise on the subject.

Yes, but a blunder so very strong.... to elaborate. When I first took a course in Roman military history, we had to learn the entire ranks of the roman officers. We also read several inscriptions (including at least one showing an aquilifer). We also learnt about the way the Roman legions fought and what religion and symbols meant to them. The error he makes should not have occurred to anyone who ever took a course in Roman military history. Heck, most of the first-semester students I know would not have made such an error.

And blaming it on Angus McBride certainly seems somewhat puzzling, as you say, because he mentions it in a text he wrote himself. I don't think McBride forced his hand there. Of course, it might be that the editors overruled him due to them wanting some sensationalistic stuff in there. That sometimes happens in histories made for the general public.

EDIT: As for why he deleted the comments, it may very well be that he is speaking at least the partial truth about McBride and was afraid of a backlash. Still, why comment on this in the first place then?

[Big Orange]

In The Fortifications of Gibraltar 1068-1945 (Darren Fa & Clive Finlayson) an 1906 photograph on pg. 45 showing the HMS King Edward VII is addressed as a pre-dreadnought battleship.

[Frank Hipper]

King Edward VII was a pre-dreadnought.

[Big Orange]

Yes it was, but in the present tense I've read that The Fortifications of Gibraltar 1068-1945 addresses that defunct ship (lost in WWII) as a pre-dreadnought, demonstrating that some Osprey books are more reliable than others.

[Serafina]

Yes it was, but in the present tense I've read that The Fortifications of Gibraltar 1068-1945 addresses that defunct ship (lost in WWII) as a pre-dreadnought, demonstrating that some Osprey books are more reliable than others.

I have nothing to say on the subject - but isn't this the excant definition of being unreliable?

Seriously, if you have to know whether they are right or wrong in this specific case, because you know that they are often wrong - then whats the point?

Reliable would be somthing like:
"Well, they are right on nearly everthing, but they screw up the crew numbers by a little bit sometimes" or
"Ok, they are very reliable on this ancient greek, but they make some errors about ancient rome"
or something like that.