Etruscans as a Monolithic Group, in Fact,

¶ … Etruscans as a monolithic group, in fact, they covered a wide geographic area with a civilization that spans many centuries from a millennium BCE to their putative dissolution a couple of decades BCE (Time International, 2001). The sculpture Etruscan warrior supporting a wounded comrade, from the early fifth century BCE, was created in about the middle of the Etruscan era. At the time this sculpture was created, the Etruscans had begun exploring the coast of what is now known as the Italian peninsula.

The Etruscans enjoyed dominion on the seas at the time, giving them "tremendous potential for trade as well as piracy" (Time International, 2001). It is obvious from the embellishment on the clothing of the two warriors that the Etruscans enjoyed their sea-based wealth.

It is also easy to believe, as Time (2001) contends, that the Etruscans were a more jovial people than were the Romans who supplanted them; despite the obviously unpleasant fact of the warrior being wounded, neither face is particularly anguished, and, indeed, the wound is probably not all that grave. About the time of this statue, or really a statuette and possibly one of the many funerary objects the Etruscans were fond of creating (Time International, 2001), the Romans were getting out from under the Etruscan thumb.

"Romans hated the third Etruscan king, tyrannic Tarquin the Proud. Abruptly in 510 B.C., as if at their wits' end, they declared Rome a republic. Its brand-new senate deposed Tarquin the Proud and banished him north of the Tiber" (Dillard, 2004). None of this is apparent from the elegant little statuette. Indeed, this piece seems to deny that the Etruscan world would ever come to an end; its details, its expression and its refinement all seem the hallmarks of a stable and prosperous civilization.

The second work, Augustus in Armor, bears certain similarities to the Etruscan piece. First, as Time and Dillard both note, the Roman rulers by the time of this statue, 20 BCE, had more than a little Etruscan blood in their veins. Both statues are of warriors, although the Etruscan statue is a tableau of life, whereas the Roman one is a paean to a great leader. Another difference is that the Etruscans were (probably continuously) at war when the statuette was cast.

The Augustus in Armor statue was created at the beginning of a period of relative peace, after a recent time of great upheaval. It was on March 15, 44 BCE that Julius Caesar was killed, and, according to some, Mark Antony was not (vroma Web site). When Augustus in Armor was created, it was at the beginning of a period of peace in the Roman world that had begun with the final defeat of Antony and Cleopatra in 30 BCE, and tier deaths.

At that a time, "Octavian gained control of the Roman world and closed the doors of Janus as a sign that peace had been restored." This is evident in the detailed embellishment of the clothing. Depicting an almost angelic attitude toward historical events depicted on the tunic, the statue serves the purpose of making Augustus just slightly more favored than other humans. He is able to gaze forward with a neutral expression on his face, no anger, no angst, but no haughtiness either.

As an expression of a society I charge of itself, this statue stands tall. Indeed, it did stand just slightly taller than Augustus himself probably was; the statue is 6 feet tall, which would have been a great height for a man of the time. Still, the statue is not monumental. While it is not so comfortable as the little Etruscan statuette, it is not imposing or threatening either.

The style of Augustus in Armor, while bearing similarities to that of the Etruscan piece, also displays a much greater understanding of the human body, and a much more realistic portrayal of it. It also denotes an understanding of the way in which art can be used to influence the public; no one observing this statue.