ROMAN

MILITARY
EOlJIPMENT
FROM THE PUNIC WARS
TO THE FALL OF ROME

is SECOND EDITION ~

M. C. BISHOP &
J. C. N. COULSTON
FrOfllispiK": S",llIof P.. I/or,ius Probus, II CUSIOS armorum. III' is slum:n ri:f'fIringll pacnuiaand
mrrying II sftiff of offi.,. (md II bool: of n:,ilill~ filUm. bolh p""hllps symboli; of his ('(mI:. Dl'piftni
llround him 11,.1' (dO('I:r.~iSf from boffO'" lifl' II small rou!!d shil'lrl. a ClIf'Vt'rI ''I'rltlflKulllr shil'lrl, a
n'l'surllfttfo-Cmillfhitm h,.lmI'I. II d(l{g" (md bdf r.:ilh straps (lfId iTl'Sll'nlir Il'n!!i,,!tfs. II bundll' of
s/ltIf",tfr.::f'fIpo"s (f), "lid IImirllJs. Pro/x,bly ISl,mlury AIJ,fromlkrKpmo. IIII/Y (nollo Sllllf),
ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT
FROM THE PUNIC WARS TO THE FALL OF ROME

M. C. Bishop & 1. C. N. Coulston

Second Edition

Oxbof,;, BooJ:s
 Published by
Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK

© M.C. Bishop and le.N. Coulston 2006

Second edition published 2006
Reprinted 2009

ISBN 9781842171592

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

Typeset in lO/12pt Caslon by M.e. Bishop at The Armatura Press

Cover design by Andrew Brozyna of AJP Design

This book is available direct from

Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK
(Phone: 01865-241249; Fax: 01865-794449)

and
The David Brown Book Company
PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA
(Phone: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468)
or from our website
Ww\v.oxbowbooks.com

To Hazel, Martha, Oliver, and Christabei

Forfurtherdttails and supplementary material st/'

www.romanmilitaryequipment.co.uk

Front cover illustration: Oberammtrgau daggtr and sheath

(photo: Archiiologische Staatssammlullg, MUlIchm)
Back cover: Xalltm cavalry helmet
(photo: Rheinisches LandesmuJeum. Bonn)

Printed in Great Britain by

Short Run Press, Exeter
 Contents
Preface and I ntroduct ion vii
Acknowledgements ix
Notes xi
Map and List of Sires xi ii

1 T he Re presentation al Evidence
I ntroduction
Propaganda Sculpture
Funerary Monuments
Miscellaneous and Non- Roman Sculpture 14
MinorWorks 16
Notes 20

2 The Archaeological Evide nce

Introduction 23
Site Deposit ion 26
Hoards 30
Water Deposits and Vor ive Offerings 30
Burials with Weapon!)' 33
Excav:nion and Publication 34
Reconstruction Archaeology 34
Notes 37

T he D ocumentary Evidence
Introduction 39
The Li rcrary Sources 39
The Sub-Literary Sources 41
Epigraphy 43
Notes 47

4 The Republican Period

Weapons 50
Armour 61
Other Equ ipment 67
Nmes 71

From Augustus to Hadrian

Weapons 73
Armour 91
Other Equ ipment 106
Nmes 123
6 The Antonine Revolution
Weapons 129
Armour 137
Other Equipment 144
Notes 146

7 The Army in Crisis

Wt:apons 150
Armour 170
Other Equipment 182
I\'ote .. 192

The i)o minute

\\'capon .. 200
Armour 208
Othcr Equipmcllt 218
Notes 228

Production 1Iml Technology

Production 23.\
'lcchnolo!,,) 241
Notc~ 249

10 Thc Studr of Milit1lry Equipmc nt

The I dcntit~ of Roman Soldiers 253
The 0\\ ner.. hip and Storage of Equipment 262
Indi\ idual1;hte and l)ccor:uion 266
InnO\ation and Changc 267
Intemction \\ ith Other Peoples 270
Scholars and Students 272
N"otcS 275

Bibliogra ph y
Abbre\iatiom 279
Rcfcrencc~ 280

Plute Cu plion s 310

Index .HZ
Preface and I ntroductlon
Before t he first edition of t his book, the last anempt tOexamine Roman mi lital)' equ ip-
ment fro m the Rt:publ ic to the late Empire in a single, substantial volume was made by
Couissin in 1926. Our 1989 booklet provided only a summary, within a vel)' restrictcd
format which precl uded the use of references. Wishing to bring the fi eld of Rom an mili -
tal)' equipment studies to a wider audie nce, the primary aim of the first t:d ition of the
present book was to demonstrate that tht: subject provides a window into the practical
workings of the Roman army. j'\'loreover, we bt:lieved t hat it cou ld elucidate the placeof
soldiers and military inst itut ions within Roman cul tu re and society as a whole and th us
have broad implications for an understand ing of the Roman world. We have not bt:en
disappointed in this respect. 1
A study with the present tide could eithe r delineate and di scuss separately t he vari-
ous classes of equ ipme nt (armour. shields, swords etc.), or it could adopt a more
historical perspcct ive. We have delibcratc ly chost:n the latter approach, nOt only be-
cause it e nables us to explore various pertinent tech nological and sociological issut:s in
their appropriate contexts, but also beca use it permits us to stan d back and view the
deve lopment of Roman equipment throughout our period.
We are aware t hat t his is an ambitious project, but il is vital to : m empl il because
Roman mil ital)'an efaet studies have tradit ionally been subordinated to narrow an-his-
torical discussions, or margi nalized as ' typology-fodder'.
It is a commonly hel d view that Rome's rise to empire owed much to the e ffi ciency
and mi lital)' ski ll of he r arm ies. Often implicit in t his opinion is the notion of Roman
[(;ch nical and technological su pt:riority over 'barba ri an' adversaries. One of the pur-
poses of the present book is to invt:st igare just how 'advanced' Roman military
tech nology was in conteml)Qr3ry terms. Ct:ntral co thi s arc rhe origins of Roman cq uip-
mcnt, its evolu tion , and thc interrc lat ion ships between soldiers, the afms production
'ind ustry' and the wi de r society of wh ich tht: afmy was JUSt a part.
What is meam by the tefm ' military equipment'? T here is no general agreement
amongst scholars and a defin it ion is most easily fo rmed in negat ive rerms. T here arc
grey areas within which objects could be either civilian or mi lital)', according to their
com ext, which is only to be expected, since the Roman army included wirhin its ranks
many of the trades to be found in civilian life. Carr fit ti ngs are a case in point: soldiers
used wagons and carrs of various kinds, but these vehicles were nor necessarily 'm ili-
tary' in des ign . Fittings arc found in both miliral)' and civilian contexts without
dist inguishing featurcs.
Thus, there is little 3dv3n t3ge in defining a rigid specification for what is, and is not,
'm ilital)' equipme nt' . Some readcrs may find our critcria to be arbitral)', bur , for the
purposes of t he present volume, mil ital)' equipment excl udes the dona mili/ana, sit:ge
engines, d raught harness and wagon fittings. l bols and clothing arc only brieny dis-
cussed, wh ilsr items of personal adornment , such as brooches, are generally omitted,
except where they may act as representational evidence. On the other hand, we have
sought to include standards and musical instruments for the fi rst time, si nce further
renection has persuaded us that their role was fundamental to t he operation of the Ro-
man army.
liii Rnllllln ,1Ii/ilm] Fqlliplllf'R1

The hislOricallimits - from the beginningofthe Znd eentul) BC £0 the bcginningof

the 5th century AD - accord I\ith Rome's rise £0. and decline from. dominance in the
~ I editerranea,; world. Theyabocoincide with the bulkofthe published archaeological
elidence: to have started earlier or continued later would h:l\e required not only more
~pace. but also a radically different approach £0 the source material.
We havcassumcd that the reader has a basic knowlcdgcofthc Roman army and will
refer to thc st:lI1dard texts. No apology is made for mixing modern and ancient
pl::lce·names but lIe halc endeal'oured £0 be consistent. and the perplexed reader Ilill
find a map and topogr.lphicalli:.t immediately after this prefacc. In mOst inst:mces,
line illustrations hal'e been used in preft:renee to pholOgraphs because they arc capa-
ble of conveying more information than a single photograph and it is easier ro scale
them accuratel~. We hale been careful fO reference facts 1\ herCler possible. wh ilst t')'-
ing 10 keep the notes to a manageable size. We h:1Ic also sought to avoid the
pseudo-technical Latin terminolob'Y which abounds in publications on the Roman
:lrmy.!
A dozen years have passed beTween the publication of the fir~t ( 199.1,) and second
editions of ROII/(JII .I1i/;ltIry Ef/llipfllt'lll. 'r his might not seem a great length of time com-
pared. for example. II ith the gap berween the first edition and Couissin's 1926 stud).
but the pace of research has accclerated amazingly in rccent years. It is not much of an
c\agger.lIion to assert thtH mililal) C(luipment studies constitute one of rhe most ex-
citing. dynamic and fast-<:hanging areas within the broad field of !{oman research.
Eight Roman \ Iilitar) E(IUipment Conferences met before 1993. of which fil'e IIc..:re
held in England: sCI'en hal'c been staged since 1993. no less than six of which hal'e met
on the continent. \\'lth each nell national I'enue a nCII circlc of archaeologists became
directly involved, oftcn realising thar hithc..:rto localised work had an extensive intc..:rna-
tional audience. Each conference followed a chosen thenlc, such as Republ ican or Late
Homan or barbarian cquipment. but cach also included sessions highlighting newly
studic..:d old finds or entirely nell discoveries. Thus the conference scries has been pre-
ciscl~ geared to bring nc" pcopk into a forum for nell Ilork. And the show gocs on!
Whilst the illustrations in the second edition remain substantiallv the same as Ix:-
fore. rhc text and cspcciall~ the endnotes halc Ix:en comple~dy revised and
substantially extended throughout. 'r his reneets olcmll research, but also reveals
some of the areas of greatc~t change. as the reader II ill be :lble to see in the folloll ing
pages. ~ I ost obviously the Hepublican period has seen a Icritable explosion in the
anefactual record, not:lbly in swords. pi/a and artillel).largely from Spain and the Bal-
kans. Serious rethinking on thc origins and dcvelopment of the '/onm Sl'glflffl/(I/(i has
been set in train by the finds from Kalkricsc ncar OsnabrUck. These are certainly Au-
gustan. and most scholars nOlI accept that they arc associated II ith the el'ents of AD 9.
~Iajor nell finds madc all along the northern frontier~ hale refined rhe del'elopmcnt or
rhe armour form almost into thc 4th centu')'. For the Antonine period there is a groll-
ing corpu~ of material from "hlllsdanubian sites occupied. leI) cOIll'eniently for our
purposes, for a shon period around the \l arcomannic War~. Recently there has been a
renaissance in the study of Late Roman helmets, nCI\ finds reawakening old discus-
sions, such as the Christian nature of some helmet imignia. J\Jblication of painted
Pre/au anti hllrotiuclion

shield leat hers from Egypt has revitalised controversies over Late Roman sh ield bla-
zons in the Notitio Dignit(l{ulfl.
in add ition, apart from other syntheses, there has been a steady appearance of large
cata logues of finds fro m ind ividual sites such as Caerleon, Xanten, Augst, Vi ndon issa
and Siscia, as well as fro m ritual sites outside t he empire. T he appearance of the
corpus of find s from Dura-Europos is itse lfa major event in Roman militarycquipment
studies. Publ ished together and to a modern standard for the first time, th is group is
probably the most important collection from anywhere in the Roman world for its
range and degree of preservation alone. The accompanying commentary and discus-
sion is wide-rangi ng, scholarly and concerned with a broad spectrum of historical,
technological and cultural issues. With this vol ume the 'small-finds catalogue' realty
has come of age. J
As previously ment ioned, we have included military standards and musical instru-
ments in the chronological chapters. We have also made more of t he funerary
deposition of military equ ipmen t, both within and outwi th the Roman emp ire, and
maintained our emphasis on 'ritual' deposition . We have retained the term t\ntonine
Revol ution' to characterise t he changes in equipment forms and decoration seen so
vividly in the latcr 2nd centu ry, not unconnected wit h the Marcomannic wars. The last
chapter is the most alte red, extended as it is to take into account developments in
broader discussions and integrating more effect ively (we hope) the appendix from the
firS[ edition on the nature of 'legionary' equ ipment. Alt hough indi vidual chapters orig-
inated from different pens, they were passed back and forth so often between us and
rcwri n en so much by both of us, that the text of the first ed ition was truly int egrated.
This is even more the case with the second edition in which we both romped freely
across al l parts of the book. The volume of work publ ished over the past dozen years is
amply ind icated by the massively enlarged bibliography of works cited (703 increased to
1205). On the model of Webster's Roman Imperia/Arm] (1969 and later editions), so in-
fluential on our generation when we were 'growing up', we hope that the bibliography
will be of use to students long after our text (like Lindenschmit 's) has ceased to be read.
We have naturally al so taken the opportunity to erad icate various errors that have
been poi nted out to us (and many t hat were not). Un rortunately, we have almost cer-
tainly unwittingly introduced new ones, fo r wh ich we will have to beg (he reader's
indulgence. Corrigenda, detailed source information for the illustrations, and othe r
relevant ma terial are available on the website for the book where the reader is advised
to check in t he first instance.~

Acknowledgements
A great many people ha\'e given us their support and gu idance du ring discussion, li-
brary research and fieldwork. We are gratefu l to all the follow ing, and apologize for any
uninte nti onal om issions: Colin Adams, Lind say Allason-Jones, Jeremy Armstrong,
Julian Bennett, Tony Birley, George Boont, Ji m Bowers, David Breeze, John Casey,
Hugh Chapmant. Nei l Christie, Amanda Claridge, Joan na Close-Brooks, Duncan
Campbell , Grnham Cole, Alex Croom, Cha rles Da nielst, Mike Dawson, John Dore,
 ROlf/tilT .Ilili"'ry ":qllipmf'nl

Phil Freeman, .\ Iaha Friemulh-el-Kaisy, Andre\1 Gammon. John Gi llamt. Iiolger Ion
G"'.l\\en, Stephen Greep, Bill Griffiths, Nil'k Griffiths, J cnn~ Il all, .\Iichacl liard}.
i\1ark llassall . Son ia Chadll ick 11:1\\ kes. Bill lI ubb,Hd, Fraser Il unler. Anne Il ybnd.
George Jobeyt, Christine Jones, David Kenned). L.tllrence Keppie, Ibrahim Kritala.
Brian i\IcGing, Bill i\lanning, Edward i\kEwcn , D,lIid Nicolle, Robi n Osborne.
Gcorgina Plow right. Dominic R:nhbonc. Colin Richardson, Thom Ri chard~on. Alan
Rushllonh, Ian ScOt t. Brian She fron, I)a\'id Sim, Da\ id Smith . .\largaret Snape, V.n
Southern. Graham Sumner. Rehecc:l Swectman. Mike Thomas, Simon 'I(ml\On.
·\ ngcla Wardle. Graham Web~tert, John Wilkes, Alan Wilkins, Rogcr \\~lson, :lnd PeICr
\\~~em:ln.
There are also a number of colleagues :lbroad II ho h:l\c otTered \'e~ wetcome a:.~i,­
t:lnee: i\latthell AIm ( I.aurel). ;..Ju~in Asg:ni (l sl:mhu l), Joaquin Aurrecocchea
FernandeL (i\ lalaga). l)ie[\lulf BaaCL ( Bad Il omhurg ".d. II .). i\ larcin BillOr,ki
( Kr:lk6w). Gerda \'On 13 (11011 (Frankfun). Ilristo Bujukliel (St,lr;'! Zagora). AJtxandra
Buseh ( Kuln ). Claus Ion Carnap-Bornheim (Sch le,"ig). Eck hard Deschltr-Erb
(Zurich), Carol van Dricl-I\lurray (Amsu:rdam). i\liehel Feugcre (i\l ontpell ier).
Thomas Fischer (Bonn). Chri\tOph Flugel (.\ Iunchen),jochcn Garbscht (.\ Iu nchcn).
.\Iichad Gechrcr (Bonn). i\orbert Hanel (Koln), Florian Ilimmlcr (Regemburg).
Emilio lIIa rregu i (SegO\ia). j :mka Istenic (Ljubljana). Sonja Jilek (Wien). Piotr
Kac/..3nol\ski ( Krak611). \liehacl Klein (~ lai nz). U:'LI6 Kocsis ( Budapesr). Ernst
KunLl (~ l ainL), i\ larrin Luik (~ Iu nchen), ~Iichacl Mackensen (.\ lU nchen),
Giangiacomo i\ larrines (I~om:l). Angel ]l, lorilio ( l..c6n). Gunther ~Iombauer
(O~nab ruck), TillOr Na/-.~ (Budapest), Andrei Ncgin (Nii' hny NOl'gorod). JUrgen
Oldc:mtein (i\lainz). Sall'atore Ortisi (Kuln). Xenia Pa uli j en,cn (K\ibenhavn). Li viu
I\;tculescu (Bucharest). Dan Peter~on (lhumholde r), Ivan Radman-Livaja (Zagreb),
Adriano La Regina (Roma), Se:l1l Richards (San Diego). Fe rnando Quesada Sarli. (i\ la-
drid). Egan Schallmayer ( Bad Ilomburg). Gu~ SticbcJ (J erusalem), Chri .. tal
Slcdegll3Td Lund (Kubenhaln).Ahmed laha (P3Imyra), l lans-Jorg l 'bl ( Kriw:ndorf).
and Ihchir Zouhdi (Damas). nm to mention countless Roman re-enactors e\'e!)'\\ here.
T here is insufficielH space ro name all the museum~ and thcir st:lfTwho halt; aided
our research. but IIC 3re \\arml~ gl".ltc:fu l to311 ofrhem, \\e arc also indcbted to t he staff
in rhe Ashmolean I .ibra~ (nolI the Sadder Li bra~). Oxford: the Joint Lib l".l~ of the
Ilel lenic and Roman Socierie,. London; the ~ar i onal '\Iu\cums of Scotland an d Soci-
ety of Anriquaries Libra!), Edinburgh; lfn ilersity Library, St Andrews; Lihra ry of
Trinit ~ Col1ege Dublin: and rhe Briti sh School at Rome,
IlImrraril'e material has becn used with the kind pcrmi,sion of rhe following: thc
Arch~ioloAische Sta:msammlung. i\!unchen (PIs. I and 2c); the Bibliothequc Nationale,
Paris (PI, 3a); rhe Bod leian Lih ra~' (PI. 6a); Jim BoIlers ( PI. Sh); Peter (,...onnoll) (Fig.
10): Simon James ( PI. 4<:): the Landc:sdenkmalamt Badcn-WuTttemberg ( PI. 2d ); Ja:lp
i\ lorcl (Fig. 42): the NarionalmuSt:et Kubcnhalll (1'1. 7a); thc Rhcini,><,hes
L:mdcsmuscum. Bonn (PI. 2a); and Roger \\~ Ison (PI. be). )alc Uni\'ersity Art G:l ll c~
and rheArrsand Ikcrearion Di li~ionof theC it) of Dundee District Cou ncil \CI) kindly
allowed prc\'iously unpublished material to be illustrated. l lnlcss othcrwist: ~rated. all
line ill ustrat ions arc by i\lClt
Pnjil(z ond Introduction

Chris Haines and the Ermine Street Guard have alway~ been most willi ng [Q share
thei r experienccor Koman military reconst ruct ion archaeology. whilst the great c nthu-
siasm, pract ical knowledge and common sense of Petcr Con nolly have helped us both
greatly. Simon James originally very generously provided unpublished information
about Dura-cumpos material , and he also read sections of the man uscript . He has re-
mained a fund of useful information .
Special dcbts of gratitude are owed to Mart ha And rews and Hazel Dodge, wit hout
whose constant suppon and very valuable textual crit icism thi s project would not have
been com pit:ted.
The following inst itutions and funds ge nerous ly provided financial support for
fie ldwork and museum visits: The Brit ish Academy; T he British Institute at Amman;
The Bri tish Institute at Ankara; T he Brit ish School at Jerusalem; T he Brit ish School at
Rome: T he Society of Ant iquaries of Scotland ; and The Tess and Mortimer Wheeler
Fund.

Cltirnsitlf' {lilt/ Sf Antlrncs, NovmtlJt:r l005

Notes
Coui ssi n 1926: Bishop and CoulSlon 1989.
HolTmann 1969: Connolly 198 1; Maxfield 198 1:Johnson 1983: Campbcll 1984: Keppie 1984: Webster
t985b.
3. Olher symheses: Feughe 1993: 1994; Slc"enson 1999; C.oulstOIl 19980: 2002. Calalogues: Chapman
2005: Il anel 1995; De.schl er- Erb 1999: Deschler-Erb,' ,,/. 199 1: Radman -Li vaja 2004. Outside: von
Carnap_Bomheim 1991; Jurgensen "(11.2003. D ura: Jame s 2004.
4. hllp:/lwv.w.romanmililarycq uipmem. co.u k
Map and List of Sites
Aachen ( DEV)
Aalc n (DEV)
3. Adamdisi (HOU)
4. Agcn( FM)
5. Ai Khanoum (A FG)
6. Aislingcn( D EV)
7. Alb;a lul ia (ROV)
8. Albano (\TA)
9. Alc.lboroogh(G BR)
10. AI~ia (Alise·Saime· Reinc:
FRi\)
11 . Alexandria ( EGY)
12. Alfaro (ES P)
U. AI· J-I aditha (JOR )
14. Allerio! (FRA)
l5. Ab6heiblY ( H UN)
16. AI1.c),( D£ U)
17. ,\n!ioch (Antakya: TUR)
18. ,\pamca(Sl'R)
19. '\llui1cia ( ITA)
20. t\quincum(Budapcsl:
H UN)
2 1. Arion ( BEL)
22. Alhens(G RC)
2J. Aucrherg(DEV)
24. Augshurg{ DEU )
25. Augsl (C J-IE )
26 Azaila(ESP}
27. Aznaldz:u (ES P)
28 Badaors(HUN}
Bar Hi ll (G BR)
"
30. Basel (CI-I E)
31. Bath (GBR)
32. Bclmcsa (EG\')
33. Bcno::n;nto(IT A)
34. Ikrgamo(ITA )
35. Bcrka5Q\'o(YUG)
36. Iknoldsheim ( DEU)
J7. Uillgen (DEV)
38. llishapur (lRN)
39. Bonn (D EV)
40. BrlIives( BEL)
41. BrlItislalll(SVK)
42. Bremen (DEU )
4J Brigel io (Szony: HUN)
44. Bu Njem ( LB),)
45. Such ( DE U)
%. Buciumi ( ROU)
47. Hudapcst(l-l UN)
48. Bumocsti ( ROU )
49 Burgh Castle (GE R)
50 Ilurnswark (G RR )
51. Butzbach( DEU)
52. Coiceres elViejo (ESP) 103. Eining(DEU)
53. Cacrlcon (GER) 104. Ejsb01 (DNK )
54. Dmclon (G B I~) 105. Elginhaugh {GER}
55. Ym inreal(f.:sp) 106. Empcl (N LD)
56 unosa {1 TA} 107. Emporion (Ampurias: ES P)
57. unterbury{G BR) 108. Enns (DEU)
58. url ingwark Loch (G BR) 109. Ennt:mont ( FRA )
59. OIrlis1e (GBR) 110. Ephc5QS (I'U R)
60. OImuntum(Bad II I. Ephy .... (G RC)
IXulsch·Ahenbmg:AlIT) 112. uelcr( GBR )
61. Carpo"' (G BR) 113. Fa}1"Um( EL"y)
62. CarrJwburgh (G BR) 114. Fulham (G BR)
63. Carrhae (TVR ) 115. Gaela (lTA )
64. New Carthage (ESP) 116. G~ ldcnbcrghciCu.:ha\·en
65. Canhage(TVN) ( DE V)
66. Car\'or.m (GER ) 117. Gamla (l S I~ )
67. Cassacro{ ITA ) 118. Gamzigrad (YUG)
68. Caslcilruf {FSI') 119. Gelligaer{GB R)
69. Castillejo(ES P) IlO. Gherb (ROU)
70. c:astleford (GBR ) Ill. Giubasco{l TA)
71. Catalka ( BGR) Ill. Gomadingen (DEU)
n. Ce lje (SVN) Ill. Cornea ( RO U)
7J. Cellcs-les·Warennes (BEL) 124. Gr.od(SVN)
74. Chalon {FRA) 125. GrlIfcnhauscn{ DE U)
75. Chasscnard (FRA ) 126. Grosskr01zenburg(DEU)
76. CheSler (G BR) 127. Guishorough(GIJ R)
77 Chesters (G BR) 128. Gundrcmmingen (DE V)
78 Chichcstcr(G BI~} 129. Hadr ianopolis (Edirne:
79 Cirencester(G BR) TUR)
80. Ciruelos(ES P ) 130. I bhcrn (D EV)
81. Clme (lTA)
82. Cloj(ROU)
8J. CokhcSlcr(GH R)
131. Ham Hill (GRR )
132.lhtrll{l RQ)
LB. Heddernheim (DEU)
84. Gonce,t! (ROU) 134. Hcrakieia Lynkcsti~ (MKD)
85. Coolus (FRA) 135. 1·len:ulaneum(lT M
86. Corbridge (G RR ) 136. I-l igh Rochesle r (DEU )
87. Corinth (GRC) 137. I IOO ll ili (G BR)
88. Coslqli ( ROU) 138. Hofhcim (DEU)
89. Crcmon~ (ITA) 139. Hou~cstcads (G IIR )
90. Croy Hill (GBR) 140. Hromo"'ka (U KR )
91. Dakovo( HRV) 141. HGfingen (DEU)
92. Dangste tten (DEV) 142. btrus(Krivina: BGR)
93. Daral·:l.tadinah(EG),) 143. JIlcrup(DNK)
94. Delos (G RC) 144. Inchtulhil (GBR )
95. Delphi (GRC ) 145. lndcIICndenIa( ROU)
96. Deurne (N LD) 146. lnlcn:isa(Dunaiijwr6s:
97. DoOCllSter (C BR) HUN)
98. Doolwcrlh (NLD) 147. lnl·elcsk(GB R)
99. Du .... · Europ05(Salhiyf: 148. ISlanbul(TUR)
SYR) 149. l a(SVK)
100. Durostorum (Silistra: IKiR) 150. Jerusalem (lSR)
101. Echzcl ] ( DE V) 151. Kalkriese (DEV )
102. Eich (DEU) 152. Kal)ilgaach{ BGR}
 ROIN('" .l/i/i/t/ry Eqlliplllmf

153. l(a,rJI-llar;l (EG)") 201l.0hcrJmmergau(DJo:I') Z6-\. Talamona<;ciu(I"I'\)

IS-I. Khi,fine (~"YR) 209. OIICr.limm (DEI ') 165. Tanj.:-i.S.lr.":.Ik. (IR"':)
IS5. "mlt'holm (GIlR) 210. Old Carlisle (C.BR) 166. TarJnl0 (ITA)
IS6.t\I\)'lerneubcrjt(.\IT) 211. Or:Hlj(C (FRA) 167. TaHlumia (ITA)
1.<;7. t\ohlcllZ (IlEl") 212. Org"dn~ Clll'i\) 268. T~\iers CUEL)
1.'i8. Kliin (DEl") 2\3. Or~<)\":.1 (ROLT) 269. Tek.ije (lI RV)
159. Klln~cn (DEl') 214, 0-!H1J (ESP) 270. Thamu,idJ (-' IAR )
160. KuplO'i (EG),) 11.~. Oudcnburl:{Nl,Dj 271. Theilenhofen (DEl-)
16J."r-~hul(D'K) 116. PJdo\J (IT\) 17Z. ThCS>.:Iionik.e (CHC)
162. "raihur~:lm 11m (DEI) 1 17. PJlc>uina (I T'\ ) 2i3. ThorJl~crj.:(I)El ·)
163. Krcfcld mEl") 1 18. ,'Jlm\rJ (SYR) 27-1. Tih,..eum (ROl;)
](.... KG'l/inlt(DEI') 219.l'cc.(lllN) 275. Ti pa,3(I)ZA)
165. L:unhJc", 220. Pen" I~ cdonda (ESP) 276. TildllCrj: ( LI 'X)
rral.Uuh- l ... mbc..c: I)I'~\) 21I.Pcruj:ia(IT\) 277. TOII!:,c,(IlEI.)
166.I...anchc'lcr(DEI·) 221. I'runl mELT) 27i1. TrJprJlIli"",,, (f.BH)
167. Leeu"cn('LD) 213.I'hilippi(GHC) li9. Tl'll>imcnc (IT\ )
168. Leidcn-Ruumburjt('I.I» 214. l'i31.1.:1 ,\rmerina (IT\) 180. Trier CDEI ')
169. Leon (F..<;I') 22S. I'ih'IllJrOl (lUi,") 2i1 1. Tuch)lfa(S\,K)
170. Leplil "bgn~ (Lily) 226. I'il,unda((;EO) 281. I ll!una(SWE)
171. Li herdlie~ (IlEL) Zli.l'ull1lICii (1'1'\) 11S3. Va~htrc,(FR.\)
In Liehcnau (DE\") 228. I'or! loci 'idau (CIU~) 28-1. Vulentla (ESP)
173. Linl (-\I T) 229.l'olluuli (IT\) 1115. \'alk.enhurj.:(:\LD)
I7.\. London (.IlR) 230. Pwj (~\''\) 2i16. Vall,J,!lrde (S\\'Io:)
17;. Lauria(·um(l.orch: ,\t ·T) 131. Pula (I'ola: IIR\1 187. \'eduen (1\L!))
176. l,ou~h()r(;HR) 132. Pu) d'i>Mliud (FIV\) 2i1i1. \'<:ben(1\I.I)
177. Lun<;a \lurqului (HOI I) lJ3. I",dna ((,I~C) 2i19. Vendel (SWE)
1711. Lu\or{ I':(;Y) 23-1. Quintana, de CiormJI (ESP) Z90. Vcria «(.RC)
IN.L,on(l·R\) 135. H:a'enna(lT\) 29t. \-crmand(FHA)
lHO_ \h.~d;J.lcn,bcr~(\tT) 236. Re~n~burjt (DEI) 292. \'erona (IT\)
181. \h.hdia("!'1 ' ) 237. Reniehb, (ESI') 193. \'Cf:'llj.:ll) (FR.\)
1112. \'~idcnCasllc (G IIR ) 13i1. Hheingilnheim (E..<;I') 29-1. \'eruIJrniurn (SI Alhan,: (.IlR)
liB. ,\l;.in/(DEII) 239. ]{ilx:hc'lCr{(;BR} 295. Vnu\lus (ITt\)
IM.1\Ianching(j)Ell) 340. Ri chhmuul<h (GBR) 296. \~cnnJ (\l T )
18.<;. \lJnIlJ\~ (11'\) 14t. RiDri"cn (DEl") 197. \im~ (I)'1K)
186. \la~da(l<;R) 141. Rocdirrc (GBR) 198. \indobnd:a (Chesreroolm:
187. \la\ilh(FRA) 143. Rome (IT\) (,Bl~)
]88. \lchrum(DEl') 14-1. Roomhurg (N L!)) 299. \indoru~S3 (\\;ndisch: (:lIE)
liN. Mcree) (FHA) 145. Ru!!"cil (DEli) 300. \~reu~-\ l olh3in (F RA)
190. Micia (\'elcl: HOl I) 146. Saalhurj((IlELT) JOt. \'uki ( IT,\)
191. \ lilan(lT.\) 2-17. S~It'~r (Ill 'I) JOI. \\addon lIill (GBR)
192. \,,~'" (FRA) 1-18. Saimc' (FR,\) J03. \\ehrin.l:("n (DEI)
19J.\londr;J.,I:Ou(FR.,\) 2-19. ~I R~m, (FR.\) 30-1. \\eiler ( Ll 'X)
19-1. \lonlefnnino(lT\) 250. ~heC\ICn «(;BR) J05. \\;e~hadcn (DEI)
19,;. \Iu S<" (CZE) 251. ~illlri, (SWE) 306. WinchcSlcr(GBR)
1%. Nahal I lc\er (I<;RJ 25Z. Si.;ciJ (Si,~k.: II IN) 307. \\~~hy (SWE)
197. 'a\\J (SYR) 253. Siucn (e IlE) JOII. Worms(1)EI)
1915. 'eu,s(DEI) 25-1. Smihel (S\"\) 309. \\orrhlll~ (GBR)
199. 'e"~lead ({.HR) 255. Sourh '-;hiclds (C.UR) 310. \\ro~erer (GUR)
200. 'iCOI)OIi~ (.\I-Raml: E(i' ) Z56. Srillfried (,\lIT) 311. Xanrcn (DEI ')
20 1. 'icderhicher(I)E(') 257. Srohi (\lKD) 3]2. York. «(.UR )
202. 'iedcrmClrmler(DEtl) 258. Srock,radl (D El i) J13. Zen..:,)\,:irk.ony (JllN)
20.•. i\ijmq:cn(NU)) 159. SrrJgcarh «(jU R) 31-1. Zugmanrel (DEli)
20-1. NOr1h"i~h (;B R) 260. <;rrJ,hourg(FR.\) 315. Z"":.Immcrdam ('- 1.1))
lOS. "\umami:a(ESI') 161. Srrauhing(DEl)
106. ',dam (I)'K) 262. ~u1!un 1100 (GBR) UmtrlryrotksjfTHfIISO.II66_SN
Z07.0herJdcn( DH ·) 263. SyrJcu,c(IT\ ) rn:.rso.lJrJ
 1 The Representational Evidence
Introduction

Before the 19th century, representations of sold iers in Roman art were virtually the
on ly sou rce for amiquarian studies of Roman military eq uipment . This gave rise to
somt curiously decorat ive armours when Renaissance craftsmen sought [0 cater 10
[:ISle for the 'amique' style. Unti l Robi nson's fe-evaluation of the pictorial sources in
the 1970s, sWlle sculpture was used to form a conceptual fr:arncwork into which the
artefactual evidence was fitted, often unsatisfactorily, rather than the actual objects
leading the enquiry. [n particular. the great propaganda monumems of Rome domi-
n~Ht:d rhe field, with Traj an's Col umn pre-eminent. Arter Robinson published his
I1r",ouf'o! Imperial ROIfIl' in 1975, n.:prcsenrariona l sources came to occupy a more subor-
dinatc position, although it may be notcd that they continue to exert unduc in fluence
on c inema and television costume design. However, they remain valuable in many re-
speCts, not least because the metropolitan monumentS present aspccts of how the
armies werc vicwed at rhe centre of power, and provincial artworks - nOlably funerary
representat ions o f sold iers - were execured by people Im imately famil iar with their
subjects, thus much empirical detail was incorpor:ued. '
Cerrai n quest ions must be asked of every representation. What was ilS intended
function? Who was the artist involved, and what were his likely objectives? For whom
would he have worked and what were their requirements? What W:lS the anist's tech-
nical and cultural background? What type of stone was he working with and what
degree of carved detail could it sustai n? In individua l cases some of these questions
may be impossible to answer, but they help in the construct ion of conceptual models
for production, suppl y, patronage and artistic intent, all of which might bear on con-
tent, and thus on interpretation of the equ ipment represented.
Ideally, the stud y of stone scu lpt ure involves the first-hand examination ofi ndivid-
ual p ieces. If this seems obvious, then it must be said that many scholars rely solely
upon photograph ic publication wit hout personally examining the material. Naturally,
there are practical and financial limitations to field and museum work, but however'fa-
mous' and well-publ ished the piece, it ought to be revisited wherever possible.
Indeed , it is very d ifficuh to rake one photograph ofa stone scu lpture which shows all
of its detail. Again ideally, each scu lpture shou ld be published with a series of general
and detail photographs taken in a variety of lighting cond itions. Above all, it should be
drawn in a manner which records al l the features and deals with it as an archaeological
artefaer. l
A very extensive literature d eals with the representat ional evidence. ~\'Iuch of it is
useful fo r the context and dating of finds and for the ir present location, hut only a
small proportion of publ ications deal direct ly with the military equipment content.
i\'Iost of the major propaganda monuments are dealt with in monographs, wh il st
smaller pieces arc often to be found in museum catalogues or in the regional corpora.
However, the geographical coverage of the latter is generally lirpired [Q western and
 Rnmflfl .IIi/ita,., Ht;uipmlWt

ccnml Europe, II ith Spain, North Africa and the Levant poorly rt:presenred. This sit-
uation II ill doubtless improve, espeeiall~ due to the Corp/IJ Sigllonlm/mpnii ROII/tllIi. l
For prc\t;:n t purposes, the representational sources may be com-enientl~ rel-iclled in
a number of 'c0 broad categories: propaganda monuments: funerar, monumenrs:
miscellaneous and non-Roman sculptures: and minor \Iorks. These group ings arc nei-
ther muru:lIly exciusil-e nor to be seen in an~ \Ia) as an orderofl'alue. The prominence
accorded to stone sculpture is of course a result of its durability in compari~on \Iith
other media.

Propaganda Sculpture (Figs. 1-2)

-'lost Roman sculptures were in some sense created II ith propaganda inrent, II hether
on a triumphal arch commemora ting an emperor's victor" or on a gra\estone ad\ertis-
ing the deceased man's starus and at:hie\emenrs. In this slUd~ 'propaganda' is taken to
mean works \Iith a spel'ific public message erected by rulers, public officials or emper-
ors. Soldiers appear principall) in reprcsent:l.Iions of imperial journeys (Pro/('("(;Of"S,
mit-mIlls), ritual sacrifices, the public burning of debt-records, speeches to the troops
(a(l/oOftio",s) , battles rmd triumphal procession~. These generic scenes represented
\\ hat rulers wanted to project about their achielemenrs blended \I ith wh:1I actil ities
II ere expected ofa 'good' ruler b~ the cl it esc of Roman society. Naturally, the largest
liewing public was in the capital, so moS[ propagamhl monuments were erected in
Rome or Constantinople. Indeed, a ,ignificanr proportion of that public was made up
ofser\'ingsoldiers, and the symbiotic relationship of emperor and arm) often informed
the content of metropolitan propaganda sculpture.~
The major limit:Hion of prop:lganda \Iorks for present purposes is that they were
brgel~ the product of metropolitan sculptors. often men (mined in a 11c1lenitingstyle,
whose knOll ledge of militar') matters lias restricted fO the guard unilS in Rome. The)
\lcre concerned to display the human form unobscurcd, for e\ample, b~ large
cheek-pieces. shields or horses. Moreoler, the human figures were often composed in
stereotyped groupings which owed more 10 religious ceremony, court ritual or writh ing
Greek hattle motifs Ihan to the rC31itiesofRoman warfare. Even some detailsofGreek
equipment lingert:d on anachronistically in Roman art\\orks, such as the hand-grip
(tlRliullH) and sleele (porpm) pecu liar to the carriage of Arch3ic and Classical period
hoplite shields."!'he minUiely accurate rendering of military anefacts was un likely to
have been the primar,' objective. On Ihe other hand. sculptors were often
consummately skilled at naturalistic carling, and in Romc they invariably worked \I ilh
the finest marbles, Ihe compact structure of II hich took the highe~t degree of carved
detaiL I
In {he :ltmo~phere of public ser....ice and political rivalr,-of the Republic fell propa-
ganda monumentS bearing military figures were erected. Except ions are the so-called
Altarof DomitiusAhenoharbus in Rome (see I'ig. 21), which depicts sol diers attending
ritual sacrifice (1st century He). :lIld the ~ I onument of Aemilius Paullus (I~g. 1)
erected b} the Greeks at Delphi 10 commemorate the ,·iCtorof I-'}dna (168 He). Both
shOll Homan mailed infantr, \Iith long, cUrl·i ng o\"al shields."
1 The R£presetllalionol Evidence

Figure I: Delails/rom Ihe Aemilius Paul/lis monument (Delphi). u legionary running; b legionary
sttmding.(Nottoscalej

During the Julio-Claud ian period there were plenty of celebrated successes but few
monuments with figural sculpt ure, and fewcr sti ll with reprt:scntations of soldiers.
T he arch at Orange (probably of Tiberian datc) has Romans and Gauls, infantry and
cavalry, in Hellenist ic-style combat scenes on its attic. Mail and scale armour, contem-
porary helmet forms and legionary shields appear. On the piers of the arch, piles of
equ ipment (coflgerwsartflorllm) provide interesting 'still life' representat ions of shields,
srandards and saddlery. Othcr exceptional depictions of armoured soldie rs were proba-
bly carved on the Arch of Claudius in Romc but, if surviving fragments are correctly
ascribed, the figures were in archaizing style with Hellenist ic helmets, muscled cui-
rasses and hoplite-grip shields . Only one group, the Louvre 'Praetorians' panel, now
with an assured Claud ian (nor Hadrianic) dating, was affected byconccmporaryequip-
ment practices.
What did develop as an important propaganda gen re was the depiction of the em-
peror with his military escort as he would have been secn in triumph or moving around
the capi tal. This appears first on coins (see below, p. 19) , but from thc Flavian pcriod
onwards also in monumental scu lpture. Sold ie rs are equipped with military belts,
shields and weapons, but hardly ever with helmets or body armour. Prime examples are
rhe Fl avian Cancelleria Reliefs (Fig. 2). as well as the :Anaglypha Traiani', the
 Ro"'IIII .Ili/illlf] /~qllipmt:"'

I bdrianic Chatsllorth Rdief, all from Rome, and panels on Trajan's Arches:u Pozzuoli
and Iknevento. 1
This unarmoured conlention continucd into the late Empire, but depiction of sol-
diers at war changed radically II ith, and after, thc erection of Trajan's Column in Rome
(\1) 113). For thc first time in the capital a I'ast number of armoured :<ooldier:<o in con-
temporal) e(luipment II ere represented on one monument. A 200 m-longspir:11 frieze
winds up the column shaft in anti-clockll i:<oe fashion, bearing 2640 caned human fig-
ure~ at halflife-~il.e (PI. 8e). These take part in a loose narrative ofTrajan's twO Dacian
wars (\0 10 1-2 and 105-6). They represenr citizen troop:<o Ilcaring the earliest indis-
putable ·/orim.'it:gmt:llfIIltI' in Roman art, au:\ilial)' infantry and cantil)' in mail. irregular
noops. an d the larious enemy ethnic tH)Cs. Among)it the !:ttter arc Sarmat ian cavall),
I irtual ly the on I) armoured barbarians to appear in Roman art. Clear dist inctions arc
made hctlleen citil.ens and /Xrf'](f'illi in equipment. )itandards (the auxiliaries gcnef'.lll~
hal'e none) and military roles. The rare il1\ohemem of citizen troops in fighting con-
tribute~ to the pre~entation ofTrajan's ~killcd gencralship. ~
T he Column st;lIlds on a pcde~tal. the four sides of II hich are caned II ith approxi-
matel) 525 items of captured barbari:1Il equipment, presumably moddled on SpO/ifl
from 'T'raj:.m's niumphs. Whilst the artists ma~ have devised their O\ln space-filling
decorat ion on shields and helmets. the) faithfully reproduced small dt.:tails of single-
and double-handed Dacian swords (j(Jkt:s). 111'(110 standard~, helmt.:ts, archery equip-
men! and scabbard-fittings."
Hobinson's main contribution to Trajan's Column ~rudi~s was 10 point out that tht.:
traditional inrerprct:uion of au:\ilial) armours as madc of hardened leather was mi~­
taken, and that metallic mail wa~ el'cry\1 herc depicted. i\ loreover, thc detailed fittings
of 'tarim gglflt:IIIIII(l' prOl'e to be usekss and mislead ing for reconstructing this armour
form. The Column's main shortcoming is that the sculptor:<o wcre unfamiliar Ilith much
of their subject m:ltter. \\~th such a largt.: number of figures they wcrc forced to work in
a shorthand of 'figure types' (citil.en soldier, auxilial), officer etc.). This categorization
scn·t.:d to distinguish visual ly thc ~tatu~ ofindil'iduals, bu t it l11ay also halt.: imposed an
unre::alistic degree of equipment un iformity. Some figure t)pcs, such as archt.:rs \1 ith
long skirts. \1 ere arr ifici,llly created using barbarian SpO/ill,1O
lInt il recently ' rr:.ljan's Column has domin::ated mOst fields of Roman arm) Mudies,
particular!) \1 here castrJmctation ::and e{luipment \Icre concerned. ' laking into consid-
eration styliLation. sculptors' mistakes and rccent developmenrs in artefaclUal
:<olUdics, the Column docs not offer much indepcndt.:nt inform::ation. T he latter may Ix:
summarized as the presence and equipment of certain irregular troop types and bar-
barians, and the lisual appe:lfancc of contcmporal) ... tandards, tents and artillel).
Another Trajanic monumcnt in Rome is represented by four panels reused on the
Areh of Constant ine and larious frJgmellls scattered amongst museum collections.
Th is is the 'Great 'lhjanic Frieze' which depicts Trajan accompanied by Roman cavall)'
and infantry. the lalle r Ilea ring '/onmSl'fllflmllllit'. identified as pr.lctorians by tht.:ir scor-
pion badges. There is some controversy about the sculpture's original context. bur the
majority l'ie\1 favou rs a posit ion with in Tr.lj:IIl's forum com plc'\;. i\ 1::any featurcs of
horse-harness. scabbard and belt-fittings, andf(l/m may be paralleled by artefacts and
I The Rfpresmlalioflol Evidmce

non-mctropol itan scu lptures. Great atrent ion to detail is a function of the more than
life-size scale. I I
All the soldiers wear an 'Attic' form of helmet characterized by a narrow neck-guard
and a plate across the fro nt ofthc bowl. T his type is very common in propaganda scul p-
ture and it is qu ite different from the majority of contemporary anefaC[s, suggesting
that Hellenistic art ist ic licence was at work. However, 'brow-plate' helmet finds do ex-
ist. Standards and unit emble ms on t he Frieze probably idemify all the men as
Praetorians, and guard un it s in Rome may have uscd such hclmetsY
A further monumcnt associated wit h Trajan's Dacian wars is thc l ropocum l ;uiafli at
Adamclisi, for wh ich c pigraphic evidence suggests a date of AD 108/9 . It consisted of a
great rotunda decorated wi th a me tope frieze and orher sculptures. Some 49 of the
original 54 meropes have survived and each is sculpted with a vignette of Danubian
warfare. 'l"he confinement of fi gures with in rectangular frames imposed li mitations,
but the attention to verifiable equ iprnent equipment detail suggests that military
scu lptors executed t hese reliefs, providing a perfect foil to Trajan's Column.13
T he meropes have most in common with military gravestone figures (see below, p.
8) and show legionary troops in mail and scale armour (see Fig. 53), not 'Ior;co
segmen((j(a'. Helmets correspond with known artefacts and drilled holes were used as an
unmi stakable mail convention. Overall, the metopes show less un iformity of equip-
ment t han docs Trajan's Col um n, and citizen troops bcar thc bru nt of the fighting.
However, clcar distinctions between legionary and auxiliary eq uipme nt are
maintained.
Trajan's Column deeply infl ucnced 2nd- to 3rd-cent ury scu lptors in Rome. T his is
clearly demonstrated by some congeries armorUHI reliefs which were carved into t he
Anton ine period wit h progressive stylization and diluted e thnic come nt. Every
post -Trajanic mon ument in Rome depicting armoured soldiers cannot be evaluated in
isol at ion, but must be compared with the Column to trace divergences from the origi-
nal figure types. For example, on two sides of the Amoninus Piu s Colum n pedcstal a
decursio of cavalry surrounds a grou p of Praetori an infamry. The latter wear 'Ior;ff/
segmen((Jfo' which differ from lhjan's Colum n armours in having multiple chest-plates
and a scalloped undcrgarmcnt. It can be argued either that these represent real differ-
ences in equipme nt practices, or that they are merely a sl ide in to artistic
cm be l l i s hm en t .l ~
T hc closest emulation of Trajan's Column occurred with thc erection of t he Col-
umn of Marcus Aurelius in Rome, ifone discou nts Napoleon l' scolofll1edelagml1deanllee
in the Place de Ve ndomc, Paris (1810) . No inscript ion survives on the pedestal so it is
undated, and estimates fo r its completion range from the reigns of Commodus to
Caracalla. Again, a spi ral relicf fri cze depicts trans-Danubian warfare, in this case
Marcus' Marcomannic wars. Much of the fine carved detail on Trajan's Col umn is invis-
ibl c from more than a couple of metres away, and scenes on the frieze arc vcry crowded.
In consequence, scu lptu res on the Marcus Column were greatly simplified. 1.1
T he military cquipmcnt on the Marcus Colum n appears at first to follow thc con-
vent ional citizen/non-citizen distinction but the scu lptors played visual games within
figure groups by alternating armour types in rhythms of scalc - mail- plate. The 'Iorica
Sf'gHiet/(tiIO' of citizen trOOpS lack t he detailcd fittings of Trajan's Column but li ke the
 IWlllun Mililury Fqflipmffll

Pius Column thcy oftcn ha\'c multiple upper torso plates ~tnd a protruding scallopcd
undergarmcnt or a skirt of protective strips (Plff'ygfS). Helmets are likewise increas-
ingly stylized; shields arc poorly depicted, small and flat , and generally lack detailed
decorative hlazons. On Trajan's Column most hand-held weapons were provided as
metal inserts, but on the J\larcus Column they arc rendered in stone. All the shafted
weapons are spears because slim, sronepilulfl shanks would have been sculpturally im-
practical. Of greater significance is the appearance of peltiform scabbard-chapes
alongside the triangu lar type which is depicted on Trajan's Column. These, like the
pll'fJ'/!.f.l, may indeed reflect eontcmpor,uy equipment changt:s. ,\ Ioreover, new figure
types were introduced on the r-. larcus Column, including an auxiliary horse archer, and
unarmoured irrcgular spearmen and archers. l"
Some of these new armour features also appear on a series of panels dating to the
reign of r-. la rcus Aurelius, and reused on the Arch of Constantine in Rome. Upper-arm
and long skirt plf'r)'gf'S indicate the presence of an undergarment worn between tunic
and '/arim Sl'fJlllf'fIlUlf/. Scale and drilled mail armours correspond with those on earlier
monuments, but a new representational convention consists of single drilled holes
within a framework of lines. This may be an experiment in mail ora padded undergar-
ment \\ith plf'rygf's. A strap with an ivy-leaf terminal hanging from a scabbard is a new
feature. Otherwise the equipmcnt on these panels and other fragments of Antonine
sculpcureisformulaicY
The process of reducing sculpted detail continued through intO the Se\'eran period.
The Arch ofSe\'erus in the Forum Romanum at Home (A0203) bears four huge rectan-
gular panels depicting the operations around four cities in Severus' eastern wars.
Roman soldiers wear muscled cuirasses, mail, scale or 'lonmSl'b'rlll'flllllfl (the last timc
the latter arc seen in Homan art). All the auxiliaries ha\e armour. except some small
groups in tunics alone which correspond to irregular trOOpS on rhe r-.larcus Column .
Shields arc all oval and flat. and the only detail not seen on earlier monuments is a
weighted pilum. Armoured Homan figures appear on triumphal friezes below the city
panels. Despite damage, it is clear that carved detail was not lavished on equipment.
In contrast. the arch's pedestal rcl iefs arc more naruralistic and conservative in style.
They include soldiers with ptlfllllltif'. who also have shorr swords and triangular chapes:
they would not look out of placc on a Trajanic or lladrianic monument. Overall, the
arch combines the increasingly bland conventions ultimately derived from 'rrajan's
Column and the 'unarmoured soldier' genre discussed above. Similarly. the nearby
Arcus Argentariorum (AI1 204) depicts unarmoured soldiers, captive barbarians and
some praetorian standards. ls
The Arch of Severus at Lepcis :-'lagna (C, /\D 202-4?) commemorated the eastern
campaigns with one city siege sccne. The same armour types appear as in Home and a
testudo of sh ields is copied dircetly from the Columns of Trajan and r-.larcus .
Large-scale friezes with ritual and processional content include twO soldiers in drilled
mail and Attic heimets. l~
The wars and usurpations of the Jrd cemury created a hiatus in propaganda sculp-
ture between Sc\'erus and Oioc1ctian. The latter visited Rome for the first time to
celebrate his twentieth anniversary of rule, and military reliefs from twO of the associ-
ated propaganda monuments survi\'e. T he first is the so-called Decennalia Base in the
I Th~ Representational Evidmct

..~

Figure 2: {Moils/ronl CnnctJJuio R£liejII, ROnlt. a pilum r.:nghl; b pilum bull; c caligaondsock.
(Nollosca/t)

Forum Romanum, which shows unarmourcd standard-bearers and officers. A pedestal

from the destroyed Arcus Novus (AD 293), now at Flore nce, shows a soldier wearing an
Attic helmet and muscled cu irass , clearly demonstrating that, despite declining pa-
tronage, Hellen istic convcm ions cominued. A third piece in Tcrrarchic style, but of
unknown provenance, now in the Vatican Musco C hiaramomi, may come from the
same arch. This shows tWO soldiers with round shields, conical helmets and
long-sleeved mail or scale cuirasses.zo
DevolUlion of the imperial office undcr the Te tra rchs involved the usc of muh iple,
regional capitals, and t hus a prolife ration of propaganda monumems. Of these, t he
beSt surviving is the Arch of Galer ius in the palace complex at Thessalonike. Threeout
of eight piers of a two-way arch still stand, two bcaringa total of28 superimposed rcl ief
registe rs. Genre scenes of battle, barbarian submission and .,imperial cere mony
 Rnmn1l .lli/irary Ettuipntnlr

commemorate both the cohesion ot'the 'H~ trarchy and the eastern call1paigm waged by
Galerius. Tlm.:e types of soldier :m.: figurt:d: unarmourt:d with largc circular ~hicld and
spear: scak-armou red \Iith conical hdmc[' circul:1r shield and ~pcar: and mus-
cled-cuiras!>ed officers. The cal"\'t:d detail is bland and functional, apart from the
shield-hla/ons.!'
Although not strictly Tetrarchic. the Arch of Comt::mtine in Rome ( /\1) 3 15) has
close stylistic affinities with the monuments jmt discussed. In the aftermath of
Consta ntine's victorious entry into Romt:, the huge arch reused a pre-existing aTeh of
I ladrian with additional building ma[t~r i als and sculptures taken from earli er build-
ings. both knO\1 n (I-orum of Tr-J.jan) and unknown (Anton inc paneb). The heads of
emperON wcre simply updated by rt:caryi ng. The rclel'ant 4th-centul) militaryeontri-
butions wcre portrait bu~ts in the passage\lays, a narro\1 frieze running around the
piers and reliefs on the facade column pedestal~. T he laner sho\\ ll1u~cled cuirasses
and Attic helmets. in the Arcus Nmus style, and large o\'al shields (one \1 ith a blazon).
The friel.e has four typt:s of soldi er.. : infantry and cavalry wit h crested Attic hclmets.
occasionally 'horned'. and large or sm:t11 OI'al or circular shields. but no hody armour;
muscled-cuirass officcrs: unarmoured infantl)' archers: ca\'alry with small o\al sh ields.
scale armour and Attic helmets. T he figures lack small caned details such as
shield-blalOns. l !
These rH:trarchic/Constant inian rt:liefs rcpresent both cont inuity and change from
the Traj:.tn's Column tradition. Not only are detail .. of equipmcnt different. but so is
styl ist ic elllph:J.si~, The concern for unobscured tli~play of the hUIll;!n torm is less
marked. so, for example, lunics arc nO( shortcned to reveal more of the legs. In com-
mon \I il h thc Arch of Galerius. not all the Constantinian sh ields \\erc scaled down in
size. NOlI th.:lt :J. I I.sold i e~ were eiril.ens, armour lIas no longeremplo)ed to denote sta-
(Us. I IO\lc\er. there was a nc\\ emphasis on scale armour which stemmed from its
incrt:asing :mist ic popularity during the 3rd ccntul) (sec below. p. 12). On thc side of
continu it y. the Alfie helmet slil1 appears without any reference to contemporary hel-
met types, and the unarmoured cOnl'e mion persisted. i\ lusc1ed cuirasse~ gained a
representational prominence for common soldiers tha t they had not enjoyed since the
J ulio-Claudian period. Pedestal reliefs were the most conseryatilC parts of Se....cran.
Diocletian ic and C...onstan t in!:!n arches perhaps because more skilled sculptors worked
on the larger-scale figures, \1 hilst smaller \\ork was done by less clas~icall~ trained (sar-
cophagus?) can·ers.
Imperial res idt:nce at Ha\'enna or Constantinople effect i\'e ly ended tf;ldit iona l pro-
paganda projects in Rome. Thu s Ihe last three large-~cale mon ume ntS relevant to this
study arc all in lslanbul. These arc the Obelisk Base and Column of T heodosius I. and
the Column of Arcad ius. The obeli~k base (AD .wO) has reliefs on its four sidcs depict-
ing rhe COUrt and public attend ing hippodrome games. The impe rial fam ily is
accomp:mied b., unarmoured guardsmen who wear tunics and lonp"s. and carl)' large
plain oval shields and spears.!\
The Column of Theodos ius (r. I\[)393) has been demolished but fr.wne ntsan d an-
t iquarian sketeht:s SUI"\'Ivc. The pieces depict Roman infantry in long-sleeved tuni c.
musclcd cuirass lIith pf(1)'gI'S, a variant of Attic helmet. and carrying a large round
shield \1 ith Christ ian (hi·rho blal.On. Sleeve length. shield sile and blazon arc
I The &preS£f1I11lioflll/ Evidence

contcmporary features, but the Hellenist ic elements cannot be ignored. Furthermore,

shields arc seen to be carried not with a central, horizontal grip, but with the tradi~
rional Greek hopl ite method with a vert ical handle (af/li/abe) JUSt inside the rim.
The Col umn of Arcadius (AD 402) likewise survives in a few pieces and a more use~
fu l set of 16th~century sketches. T he majority of men were probably unarmoured and
carried round or oval shields with geometric and Ch ri st ian blazons. The main fragment
is extremely weathered but the hopl ite shield grip is clearly used.
Imperial portrait statues fu[fi lled an obvious propaganda role, but l st~ TO 2nd-cen-
tury cu irassed examples are tOO fo rmalized to provide usefu l informaTion . Some
3rd-century examples do incorporate contemporary belr types and fittings . rl'Ctrarehie
and later purple porphyry portraits, especially the cuirassed Tetrarchs at Ven ice and a
series of cloaked (ch!amys) statues, arc much more informative about swords and
belts.H

Funerary Monuments (Figs. 3-4)

Th is class includes all representations of soldiers and military equ ipment in fu nerary
contexts. Most common arc gravestone figures (bust, half-length or full~length) which
show the deceased in mil itary attire to advertise his statu s and profess ion to people
passing the grave. Figures are sometimes associated with larger monumcnts such as
mausolea, and a bu il ding could also be decorated with friezes of arms. Sarcophagi
might have scenes of battle and barbarian subm ission on their sides. With both friezes
and sarcophagi there is less assurance that the deceased was a soldier in life since war~
fare and its at tri bu tes probably came to symbol ize the struggles of[ ife and vicroryover
death ..! 5
Depiction of the dead on stand ing graveSTOnes (slelae) had a long history in the Clas-
sica[ Greek and Hellenistic world. Roman examp les appear in rhe late r Republican
period in Ita[y. Generally t hey depict hal f~figure officers whose rank is made clear by a
sword and muscled cu irass withplt:r}'ges. The stela of a centu rion from Padova most un~
usually shows a fu ll ~figure man (sec Fig. 22). He is unarmoured and carries sword,
dagger and ce ntu rial staff. In the early 1st century AD the pract ice of erecting fi gural
stelae spread out from northern Ita[y (where it cont inued) to the Rhineland armies.
Three main classes of representation developed: standing soldier (full-length and
half~figu re); riding cavalryman (Rrilerf)'P); funerary banqueT (Tolmfflllh/J .'!6
The first of these main classes shows the deceased stand ing frontally, commonly
unarmoured, but wearing military belts and s id e~arms (sec Fig. 150) . Sometimes he
carries a scroll, sometimes his shield and shafted weapons. Th is is the eq uivalent of
rhe 'unarmoured' genre of propaganda sculpture. When a /orKa is shown it is some~
times carved with scales, as on two examples at Verona. More commonly the STOne was
smoot hed off ready perhaps to rake a fine plaster (gesso) and paint coating on which
scales or mail rings could be deli neated . Robinson convinci ngly disproved t he tradi-
tional view that the smooth garments were leather 'jerki ns'. To be protective, leathcr
had to be hard and stiff; but the large sho u [ d er~p i eces of t he gravestone garments indi~
cate that they were flexible. Drilled holes were almost never used as a mail convention
10 Rom(lN .IMlltl'] Equipm&ll

on provincial gravestones, but gcsso and paint could howe allowed a high degree of de-
tail [Q be applied to locall} available stones. 'rhe latter were often softcr than the
fine-grained marbles used in (he capital. but this did not prevent somt: features being
carefully decorated, in particular (he belts, scabbards and sheaths. I lclmets are seldom
worn in order that the man's face be unobscurcd, but the SIr/af' of C. V:llerius Crispus
(\\"csbaden) and C. Castricius Victor (Aquincum) arc twO exceptions oftht: latc I s[ to
carly 2nd century AD (I-ig. 3),
Rank could be indicated by a muscled cuirass for sen ior officer. t ilis for cCOIurion,
long staIT for 0pfio. siP/Hili for sl:andard-bcarcr, or horn for musician. Some soldiers carry
a knobbed staff ifustis), not to be confused with the centurial t';I;s. which \\as used to
brutal cITcct on civiliansY
The ca\'alry gra\'estones often dcpict an fljU~S riding down a barbarian ( I--I g. 4.1). The
deceased is usually armoured in the plain convention. but is occasionally depicted in
scale. and wears a belt. scabbarded sword and hdmct. /\ shield and shafted weapon are
carried. Great care is often taken in depicting the horse-harness and saddle. 70fl'flllltlhi
stones (Fig. 4.2) employed the old Greek motif of the deceased reclining on a banquet
couch in one panel, and his horse being led by a groom (ado) in a second. The mlo
sometimes wears the dead m:m's armour and carries his shield and spare shafted weap-
ons.!!!
The taste for these gravestone types spread from Germany 10 Britain \\ ith the
Claudian ill\'asion army. Erection \\as a regional phcnomenon with smaller numbcr~
occurring away from these areas and Italy. There are some in Gaul. fewer still along the
Danube and in North Africa. and h;]fdly any in Spain and the eaStern provinces.
Examination of 82 figured l st-cemury tombstOnes surviving from Britain and the
Rhin e land. although doubtless hampcred by various unknown depositional biases. re-
veals that 38 per cent belonged to infantrymen (13.5 per cent legionary, 13.5 per cenl
auxiliary, II per cent uncertain) and 56 per CCnt to auxiliary cavalrymen.l'I
i\lilitary sld(J~ provide an imJX.lrtant foil 10 metTOJX.llitan sculpture because so many
details of sword-fittings and horse-harness. for example. are verified by artefacts. The
gra\cslOnc scu lptors wcre certainly familiar with military equipment. and it is likely
that a significant proJX.lnion of sculptors were serving soldicrs or vcterans. Thc knO\\ 1-
edgc of artist and clicnt could itself cngender mutually understood cOIl\'cnt ions \\ hich
mislead modern obscn·crs. I lorses. shafted weapons and shields were scaled dO\\ n to
fit them into the confines of niches. Belt-plates. scabb:Jrds and sheaths were decorated
with squarcd rosette motifs - shorthand for the mueh finer noriate inhtid 'St Andrew's
Cross' designs on actual objccts.
Numbers of figural .lIP"" decrease in the 2nd century. though they secm to gain a
wider geograph ical currcncy. l lowc\'er. rhc sculpting of small equ ipment details dc-
clined. Examples from Corinth and Philippi continue [hc standingsold ic r and R';IPr'.rp
genres respectively. Scveral gra\'cstones occur in northern Britain along the \\'alls of
Il adrian andAntoninus Pius, with a panicuhtrly fine example at Croy Hi ll (sec Fig. 73).
A group of stones from 'lipasa in Algeria belonged to Danubian trOOps campaigning in
North Africa during the reign of Pius (see rig. 76). >0
The situation ch:lIlged completely in the early 3rd ccntury when increasing num-
bers of sldo~ appcar (see Figs. 93 and 1(9). They arc most densely distributed in the
I The RepreseJlfational Evidence 11

Figure 3: Infanlry fOmbslon£s of Ihe early Priflcipate. I Valerius Cnspus, lcgio VIII Augusta
(Wresbaden); 2 Caslncins Viclor, legio II Adiuuix (Aquincum). (Nollo scale)

Upper and Middle Danubian region, and in Rome. It is tempting to ascribe the renais-
sance offigural gravestones to the political and economic rise of the Danubian soldiery.
These men were favoured by Severus' reform of Praetorian Guard recruitment, hence
the e rection of many sielae in Rome. Third-century fi gural gravestOnes occur allover
the Empire with concentrations at bases of panicular strategic importance, such as at
N icopol is ncar Alexandria in Egypt, and around Byzantion on the land-bridgc between
Europe and Asia. They aTe very sparse in somc other areas, notably Spain, along the
Lower Danube and, interestingly, in the Rhineland.}!
Standing soldiers predominate. and some rider stelae are associated especially with
t heequites singulares Augus!i in Rome. The latter had traditionally been recruited largely
from the Lower Rhenish and Danubian provinces, and scenes of colo and horse(sl ap-
pear in Rome, Germania and Pannonia. The vast majority of figures fo llow the
'unarmoured' convention and the most characteristic feature on 3rd-century stones is
the circular ring-buckle at the waist. This is often prominently displayed and, in the
absence of an inscription, it is sufficient to identify t he wearer as a sold ier and the stela
as a military gravestOne . On the best ring-buckle gravestones, care was taken in carving
beh- and sword-fittings. Howcver, even with these, there are stylistic simplifications,
12 RomllN .llililfllJ' Equip,"m!

notabl~ the tr.Ulslation of hinged, heart-shaped baldric terminals into il}lcafpcndants

(~cc Chapter 7).1!
Gr.wcstonc figurc~ continw.:d to be carYl~d in the "Ietrarchic period, after ring-buck-
les Ilent out of usc. 'l'hcrcaftcr sIr/a' decline in qual it}. q uantity and geographical
di~tribution. They arc ;1150 I c~s easily datable. Exceptionally, an incised fi gure :11
Aqui1cia has an inscribed consular date of AD 352 (sec Fig. 133). A standing soldier
from Strasbourg j, crudr.:l} caned, but wears a helmet and carries the large circular
shield seen in metropolitan scu lpture. A fell rider sf,I,,!' rt::i::nc tort/fafrar/ori; but ShOll
the men unarmourcd. 'f he prJcricc of erecting figur.1I s/I'/t" appears not to h:l\ c out-
lasted the . hh century 1.1
Few figura l sIr/ill' repre:.cnt equestrian officer.. ;'>oIotablc c,ccplions arc an 'unar-
moured rider from Ephe\os and a full-figure II ilh mu,cled cuirass from Sitten in
511 iw:rland (sec I~ig. 52). Soldiers could also aspire to a funeral) altar. An extraordinal]
group of some 54 figur:11 fum:ral] altars was en.:cled at Ap:unea in Syria, a base oflen
uscd by /rgio /I Pllrlhim during Sel'eran wars \\ ith I~lrth ia. The in scription s arc ex-
tremely concerned to situate the deceased IXlth h} p()~ition Ilithin ~pccific eentul]
and cohort of the legion, but aho by acquired pehonal ~ki ll s. These western legionar-
ies in the Greek east ,ee.:m to hale been unusually determined to adl'enise their rank!>
and achiel'ements. The.: altar form was impoTled from [{ome.:, and the auxil iarie.:s at
\ pamea were d i!>ti ngui!>he.:d by the usc of rider sIr/til'. ,\ Ilractorian centurion i, repre.:-
sented nan ked b~ sig,," on a 2nd-ccntul]' altar in the.: Vatican Galleria I..apidaria. and a
J rd-century PraelOrian hold!> a pi/1I111 on a small altar in the i\ luseo delle lerme (Rome).
Presu mahly equcstrian!> \lere.: usually interre.:d in mau,olea and milital]' imagcl] \I(l!>
e.:mployed in reliefs on the'e monuments . The mausoleum of i\lun at ius Plancu, at
Ga!.:ta has a metopc frie/e with the e:lTlicst repr!.:scntations of curving rectangular
shie ld, (r. 20-- 10 He). Fra!-;rne.:nr:11) reliefs, probably from mausolea at Arion and Sainte.:~
respectively sholl tal'a ll] in the.: Rrilrrll'P style and infantry in helmets and, pm,ihl)"
some SOrt of segmental body armour. The.: Augu!>tan mausoleum of the.: lul ii at St Hbn)
depicts combat bet\\cen Romans and Gauls in inrerlocked Greek style. but pi/a. !>ome
armour details and s:lddlel) arc inform:Hil·e. En:n depict ions of gladiatorial equ ipmcnt
on mausolea bear upon discussions of milital] pbte-armour.1-<
Lastly. there are rhe sculpted Mon!.: sarcophagi II hich came into fas hion from the.:
I ladrianic period omlards. Antonine 'battle' sarcophagi \lcrc inspired b~ the
~larcomannic Wars :tnd are.: identical to the i\brcus Column in both style and e(ju ip-
mellt depicted. The.: on l} additiona l detail of intcrc,r is the first dcpiction of d!"(lro
sta ndards in Homan usc, on the 'Portonaccio Sarcophagus' in Hornc . 'l.m1mf'Sl'gmrollll(lf
on scveral sarcophagi arc me:lIling1cssly fanciful. In the 3rd centul]', lion-hUllt scene.:s
predominate. but soldiers do part icipate. The depiction ofscalc armour was popular, a!>
were the eagle-headed helmets seen on con temporal)' hu nt gravestones. l ' narmoured
mcn some times \1 ear accurately represented ring-buckle belt s. The mid(?)-3rd-cen-
rury 'Great Ludmisi Sarcophagus' in Rome quite unexpectedly has one of the mOSI
realist ic portrayals of mail in Roman art, plus a ring-buckle, and another fine Roman
tlmro. Fou rth-centul) Ch ristia n sa rcophagi ape the Arch of Constantine i\fih·ian Bridge
frieze to depict Pharaoh's army crossing the Red Sea. l lis troops wear the same sca le
I The Represenlfltionu/ Evidence 13

Figure 4: G{JV(j/ry tombstoner ofthe ala Noricorum from Iherody Principule. I '!: Flavius Bossu5
(Kf)/n); 2.M. Sucrius Primigenius (Kf)/,,). (Nol to scale)
14 Roman Alil;/II') Equip""lI!

armour and Auic helmets. thus:1 new contaminatory tradition had replaced Trajan's
Column by this time. H
Finally, it must be recognised that figural funerary monuments honouring Roman
soldiers form an cXlraordinarily large, rich and \'aricd corpus. Including gravestones.
grave-altars and other similar representations, such as st:nucs and mummy-portrailS
(sec below), there is a minimum of750suI'\ivingdcpiciions ranging from L11C Repub-
lic to Late Empire. This is immense by any pre-modern standard, even compared with,
for example. 51h- [Q 4th-century Be Attic figural gnl\'c su"'~. or 12th-16th century AD
knightly effigies. Such an iconographic record of individual soldiers is nOi surpas~cd
until the extant photographic portraiturc of enlistcd men going off w the American
Civil War. Natura lly, any study of ancient funcrary representations comes with the cus-
wmaryseries ofhcalth warnings. In the Roman corpus there arc obI ious biases towards
wealth and rank, statistics further skewcd by patterns of sur\'i\'al, collectability and
modern recording. It must also be appreciated that ho\\elcr arresting and immediatc
arc the images of deceased Hom an soldicrs, they probably represent a small proportion
of the artworks originally commissioned. Morcover, some 750 examples certainl~ con-
stitute a tin) sample of the minimum of file million deceased Roman soldiers \Iho
servcd o\'er 350 ycars. Nevertheless. apart from their depiction of milital)' e()uipment,
these representations may be I'aluably stud ied for their shifting geographical and chro-
nological distributions, and thcir social and cultuml constituents. Abovc all they tell us
much about thc soldiers' position II ithin a II ider mi li tary communit) and II ithin Ro-
man society in gcncml. and about soldiers' pcr~onal pride in loyal selvice and carcer
achicvcment. 1t.

Miscellaneous and Non-Roman Sculpture (Fig, 5--6)

This catcgol)' covcrs all ~tone sculpture which did not hale Homan statc propaganda or
funcmry functions. FOr example. a large scale. high rclief:.cu lpture from Alba l ulia de-
picts a legional)'(?) Ilith scale and segmcntal torso armour, a segmental arm-guard. and
a cun'cd rectangular shield. f)Olllllllililllrill lIere shown on honorific ~tatue base~ of
prominent soldiers. 11
Pedcstals found rcused in the Homan tolln Ilall at i\ l ain~ arc thought to hal'e come
from colonnades in the Fla\'ian legional)' pnllrtpill. Their sides bear can'ed single or
paired figures representing legionaries, an auxiliary and barbarian prisoners. The small.
square spaces available cramp the subjects. but attention to detail betrays the sol-
dier-sculptors' intimate knowledge of military equipment (Fig. 5).'~
i\ li lital)' equipment details creep into the depiction of deitics II hosc :lItributes in-
clude armour, swords, shields and shafted weapons. NaturJlly this occurs principally in
frontier regions, probably at the hands of military sculptors. A 1\1ars figure in a relief
from -'Ial'illy wears a Ilcll-depicted mail cuirass Ilith large shoulder-pieces and a chest
fastening-hook, and a i\lars from AI~e) holds an unwcighted pi/11m. i\ lars statues from
Old Carlisle and Aalcn have 3rd-celltury sl\ord-fittings. Equestrian statues topping
'Jupitcr Columns' in the north-western provinces sometimes havc accuT'Jtely mod-
elled sadd lery and harness. ' I'emple friezes wit h b,mle sccnes also come within this
1 Tlu &pmffllaliono/ Evil/mct IS

Figure 5 Column bose rebFfsfrom Alainf(',. Traditionally thought 10 show(I (In (luxiliary in combol; b
Itgiollaries in combol; r Irgio1l{wy (centurion?) re·ith tethered prisoners (1101 ..hom·n); d Irgioll(J1·ies Of!
Ihe 1IIarch. (Nolto scale)

religious spht:: rt::. Examplcs in museums at Palestrina and ;Vlantova (both from Rome?)
show early Im perial Roman cavalry assaulting barbarians, and exhibit some interesting
armour details. Certain altars also bear military figures sueh as the mai l-dad soldier
from Cluj. Officers with ring-buckle belts appear on altars from Intercisa and Eining.
the latter being the earlicst datable depiction of this cqui pmcnt form (AD 211).39
Some classes of non-Roman or questionably Roman sculptures portray either Ro-
man equipment or equ ipment used by irregu lar clements within Roman forces. The
16 ROIII(JII ,lIilifllryF.fIUipmf111

Figll,., 6: 1'h~ 1'f/,n;'Y! r.":(lr,ior. (Nolto

sm/t>j

student of archery and eastern armoured cavalry rna) profiulbly employ compar:lt i,-c
rcpn.:scm3 rional ~urces from the 1..e,"alH, Ccnrml Asia and Chin::l.-IO
]'irsr-cenml1 AI) gran:sroncs in the Crimea depict the Sarmar ici....ed local urban
elite on horseback. with the ir armour for man and horse, archery equ ipment and weap-
onry. Parthian and Sassanid rock reliefs represent archers and armoured cavalry, and
the 3rd-ccnlul) propaganda reliefs ofShapur I show the beh and sword fillings of de-
fc::ncd Romans in fa it hful detail (see Fig. 103). l\ mongsr the immense body of
Palmy rene sculpture. lSI-century ADdeir ies \\car n3 Ii,-e lamellar armour and Cllrr) Ro-
man swords \\ ilh four-ring suspension, but in the later 2nd century rhey change mer to
Il elicnistic muscled cuirasses and scabbard ;s lides', Caravan gods carry Palmyrene cav-
alry \\eapons and pages hold their masters' archery equipment.~'
In the WeM. lkpublican period rel iefs from Osuna depict Celr- lberian infantry and
\\ hat rna) be Roman legionaries. A series of statues from central and sou thern FT'.mce
depict Gallic \\'arriors in mail (En tremont) or unarmoured (f\ londragon.Alesia). Some
of these sculpt ures predate the Roman conque~t and may be the earl iest representa-
tions of such armour, Str'l"t'depictingNumid ia n riders in North Africa correspond well
\\ ith Roman sources for native ca\alry and a figure from Vachcres ( Fig. 6). long though t
to be a Gallic warrior. may in fact depict a nobleman seryingas a Roman ca\'a l l1m:\Il.~!

Minor Works (Figs.7-9)

Representations of military subjects occur in a \\ ide range of media in add ition to stone
scu lpture. They arc e(IUally varied in sca le. from life-size paintings to minute coin de-
I Th~ R£prrsmloliontll Evirlnu;I' 17

Pigu,.~ 7 tl/flllllscripf illllsfmtio!l of fil'lrl fral!l~ (kambcstrion) tllld ff:tlslters frolll Heron's
Chcirobal listra.

signs.The great advantage of paintings is the good chance of natur.llistic colours being
reproduced. This is ,'ital for text ile srud ies, given the paucity of militaryclmh ing find s.
Third - to 2nd-ccnrury Be frescoes from a tOmb on the Esquil ine Hill in Rome depict
histOrical scenes and includecurvcd oval sh ields of a typc seen in Rcpubl ican sculpture
(see above, p. 2). A fresco from Pompeii (pre-AD 79) shows a soldier in a brown cloak
(pm'llulrl) being offered a drink, mhef\\'isc soldi ers appear in crowded mythological
scenes. Some 1st to 2nd century painted mummy poma its from Egypt depict the de-
ceased with studded baldri c and sword, marking thcm as soldiers or cphcbes. All the
other painted rcpresentations of soldiers date to the 3rd to 4th ce nturies AD. At
Dura-Europos paintings in the synagogue (see Fig. 112), the l cmple of the Palmyrene
Gods and several houses depict Roman or biblical soldiers in contemporary atti re.
Other paint ings havc been preserved by sim ilarly d ry condit ions in Egypt. A3rd(?) -ccn-
tu ry mummy portrait from Dar al-Madinah shows an unarmoured soldier with a sword ,
and Oioc1ctian ic mi litary frescoes were rccordcd in the Dynaslic temple complex of
Luxor before their partial destruction. In the West, the Vi lla Maria Catacomb at Syra-
cuse ha.~ a painted 4th-century sold ier with helmet and shie ld (PI. 6c), wh ile soldiers
appear in the rough ly contemporary Via Latina Catacomb in Rome (PI. 6 b ).~3
Floor and wall mosaics also provide informat ion about clothing and its colours. Men
on the Constant inian mosaics at Piazza Armerina are identified as soldiers by their
flat-topped caps and broad belts with metallic finings (see Fig. 138). Mosaics in Istan-
bul, Syria and Jordan are notable also for the fine depictions of horse-archers and
archery equipment from t he 3rd to 6th centuries AD. Although strictiyouLSide the pe-
riod of the present study, the wall mosaic of Justinian I in S. Vitale at Ravenna
represents armed, but unarmoured, richly attired guardsmen with large oval shields
and torqucs, in thc manner of the Obelisk of T heodosius (see above, p. 8).41
18 Ro""," .I1i1ilflry Eqlliplllmf

F/~lIr' 8: TIl, Grlll'f)1I JiMI' missorium. 'lnr iflsrriplioll shor.:s thaI if rif'piflS fiN F.mprror
I'(lim/il/jim (pro/)a!J/)' /'(I/"",illl(IIIIII).

;\ I:muscripr figures and illuminations somclimc!o. shOll military equipment. The

mO~1 imporranl is Ihe I::ue ·hh- (Q early 5rh-ccntury \D .\'oliIVI Digni/(JfuHI with its offi-
cials' insignia of office and shield-blazons for 1::1Ie Roman army unils ( PI. 63). Of similar
date. though of less pmerical u.'Sc. are Ihe illuslrations \\ith the anonymous /N Rrblls
Ikl/iris (r. I\D368-9?). Treatises on siege-warfare (polior/:nii(l) and anillery prol'idc dia-
grams for various engines (Fig. 7). All these manuscripts arc limited by their having
been transmitted Through medieval copies. Less technical. and surviving in the
5th-cemury original, arc the illuminarions accompanying cop ies of the /liar! and the
Arm-iti. Unlike the frescoes, their colou rs are stylized,~ \
Representations in metal include copper-alloy statuettcs of single standing or
moumed soldiers. Their cuirasses and helmets arc I'ery much in the style of Trajan's
Column and the Great Trajanic FrieLe. Sim ilar, but smaller. copper-alloy figurines IltrC
also used perhaps as harness appl iques or as decoration on equestrian statues. Em-
bossed mil itary figures decorate helmets and rabbI aTe, notably a legionary on a
Znd-cemury AD helmet from Nawa in Syria. and soldiers on a Trajanie (if genuine) ICS-
sci wh ich wefe directly copied from the Grear Trajanic Frieze. A small auxiliary
cavalryman is embossed on a lead coffin from Glamorgan.
I '/'IfI' Rrprl'Si'fllflliO!l/JI/<:vit/l'fJrl' 19

Figllrl' 9: Coills (IS n-prI'SI'flllllioll(lll'flit/l'1lrl'. I Pnll'lOritms u:ilh IWlllflgulllr Guy-wI widf/s Of!
sestc.:rtius ol Gflills (AJ)39-41); 2 t/aggl'rsoll denarius ol /1r"'lIs (42 Be).

Fourth-century silver plates (missar,") show emperors surrounded by rheir unar-

moured guardsme n who wcar jewelled neckle rs (lorqlll's) and carl)' shields. Quirc
c.:xcc.:pt ionally, a Villcntini an ic example at Geneva has helmeted guards with enormous
shidds displaying blazons ( Fig. 8). Some l sr- and 2nd-century AD coins depict sol-
dic.:rs, often listen ing wan emperor's speech (at/lomlio). An aswu ndingdegree of detail
was ach ieved by die-cuttcrs so Ih:1( armour and standard types, and cven shield-bla-
zons can be distinguished (Fig. 9). A growing class of cloak brooches takes rhe form of
WC:Lpons, helmets, shields or the insignia of detached troops (/JfWf'jiriflrYl). Some c\'e n
represent sold iers, as wit h a 3rd-cemury brooch depict ing a cavalryman from Kraiburg
am Inn. The man wears a ' Ph rygian' helmet and carries shc:lt hed javel ins behind his
saddlc in the manner suggested by Josephus.46
Th is covers the main medi a. In addition, ivol)' furniture panels from Ephesos seem
to show Trajan with barbarians and soldiers. The latter h:lve fcather-erested helmets
and one wears a lori{{f 1/tIll/fIM. A wood sculpture from Eb'YPt, now in Berlin, represents
:lrmoured late Roman soldiers :lOd h:Hbarians around a city. Ht:publi can period cineral)'
urns and temple tcrracottas show Roman soldiers in mail. whilst terrac..'Otta figures from
Cano...a represent Nu midian cavalry. Small ceramic horsc-and-groom figurines depict
...addle!)' and harness in useful detail and the s..1mc med ium also e ncompasses Gallic
warriors, and plaques sho\\ ing eastern horse-archers and ,lrmoured lancers.~1
Sm:lll bone or metal model weapons found on military sites perhaps had a \'oti,'c
function. 110ws, spears, ;Ixes and swords occur, and some, especially of the larrer. incor-
porate authentic det;lils. 4~
 20 Romall ,lli/ilm}' Fqllipml'flf

Lastly, th e re <In:: scratched or drawn graffiti of horse-archers and cataphracts from

DUfo.t-Europos (sec Hg. 12.1) and various No rth African sires. The l:mer include a
Jfd-century standing sold i!.:f from Ilu Njcm exh ibiting a circ ular scabbard-c h;]pe. ~g
Some of this welter of minor works have a value in terms of colour (paintings, mosa-
ics) or con tent rarit y value (manuscript and metalwork shiel d -blazon s, graffiti ), ivl3ny
are toO diminuti ve or too sryl izcd to be of more th an cumu lative val ue and it is some-
t imes the case [h3[ the smaller the object t he less rel iable it is as a source of
information.

Notes
I Cf. Couissin 1')26 ~nd Kohin'''1l 1975: Coulston 19K1. t\ntiquc style: Soler del Campo 20()O, -19- :;0,
70-1. Cin~m:J ; Solomon ZOOl.IB- 9S. 191
E.g. full puhlic:Jtions: Bishop 191Bh: Nodk~ 198&: Coulston 1988b.
." E.g. Al11dun;,: 190.1: 1l:Jrk6n.i 1944: lkn~<.:ddik 1979; Esp: Esp. Ga'fll.: Franzoni 1987: Il ofmann l'IO.'i:
Kieserill-k\' and Wa!l.in;,:er 190'1: d<.: l..J d,,'n~ 1 da! 1984: Pfuhl :lnd ,\ Iobius I 'Ii?: &h l ei<.:nnadl~r 19114:
SchobcrI923:Sehzcrl'!!!Il;Sp, id, 1 19'14~.
4 Ilamberg 1945;Sdwip,r 19H2; C~"'I' I ><.:1 11 9H4 .4 7. (,.~- 7 . 72-84. 120-1. 142-8. 182-5: I lann<:Sl~d 19116
Sec Kocppdl982.l'ublic and sold ia,;, Cooi.<ton lO00
Robinson 1975,7.64-;:;; \Vauril'k 19H.I: 19119: Co"lsron 198.1.24-5. Hoplile shields: lI anson 1'I1l9.
6S-71:Snocigrass l'Yi'!.5.'-.'i;Van\\'ees2004. 41l
Ahenoh:Jrbus: Robinsnn 1975. I'ls. 46.,- 6. A";111ili,,~ I'aulus: K~hkr 1965.
Orange: Anwfftl/ 1962 , Cbudi:Jn ard,: K'><':I'I><.:II91:(>h. ( ;:Jneelkri:l: ,\ Iagi 1')45; Kocppcll91l4. No. 7-11
An:Jgl"ph,, : Kocppd 1'!!!6. No.2. Ch:JI",orth: Ko"ppd 19K:;. No. 8. I 'o~.zuoli: Kahler 19;:;1: Flower ZOO I.
Ikne"enlO: I bsse1 1966: Finsdl,nI972:Andrea,,; 1979
8. Cichorius I 896-19()(), Ldunann -l brtld><.:n 1926: I.Cj']><.:r :md Frere 1988: ScUisNa/ 1988; Cooi.<lOn
1989; 1990b; 200h; 200.la; 2{)()3b: forthn)1nin)<a: Koep[X!II'J<JI: 19')2; Coarelli 2000.
'J Camber 19(,4; I'olito 1998. 192-8: Coulston forthcoming:!.
to. I{()hin~un 1975. 170: Bishop 2002, 2- 5. Figure ly[X!s: Coulswn 19H9..1l---4; CuublOn furthwmin)< a.
IL Kocl'pd 1985.1'.'0.9-16: Le:mder T ou;]li I'li17; Coolston 1000, 92. 99
12. !\tti,' hdmets: Robinson 1975.27.64-5, Waurid Iwn. 292-8: Di ntsis 1986. 10S-12
19112

15. Pe!er.;,n ~Ia/

16. W~uril'k 1'I1l3. 29&-7; 1989. 46-58. Horse-archer: Pe!ersen rial. I H96 , Stem; LVII. Irre)<uIJn;: ii/iii. XV.
XXVI I. XX'\'IX. LX,\VlI[
17. Kocp[X!11986.Nos.23.26-"I;d. i\'os. J7,"S---6
18. Arcus Argemar;orum : I b l'nes and !Ium 19.,9; Bri lli~n! 1967. Fi )<.ol: Koep[X!II990: Elsner 2005.
19. Ih ndillelli flal. 1966.67- 70, Fig . .,1. 46; Brilliant 1'167. Fig. 98; Andreae 1'177. PI. 557--&0.
20. [)~cenn:Jlia: Kahler 1964: Koeppe l 19<fll. I'e<k'lal: Brilli~nt 1982. Chiaramon!i: Kocp[X!il<J86,No. 48.
21. [)e\'olution: Srejol'if 1'J<J3: Rees 2004. 27-30. Th c,s~loni ke : l ..Juh~,htr 1975.
22. I;Or:lOge and \'on Gerbil 1939: Koeppe l 1<J90: I)e ns~h<.:n<.: and I'anel la 1999: Confortoflal. ZOO1.
2., . Obelisk: Iklbrikk 19,,3. 185- 92. Pis, 86-.'1. Colomn of ' I'heodo,i\J,: Ikcatti 1960,8,,-150, Pis. 48-35.
Column of t\readius: /11111" 151-264. Pis. 56--6.t 7J__HO; Freshfield 1922: I.icbeschutz 1990.273--8. Pis.
1- 7
24. Cuir:w;ed statues: Vtrl11eulc 195')--&0, Robins,,,, 1975. 147- 52. I'urphyr~: sta tu es: Lklbruck 19,,2. Pis
3 1-5.47-51
25. S<.:eCumom l'l42.
26. Officers: Keppie 1984.1'1. S: Franzoni 19117. 1'1. VI l,.,. J>~do\'~: Ibit!. No. ZO. SIt/a ty[X!s: Schober 192,,: GR
111:G"belmalln \ 972:Andc rso1l 1 91l4 ; Sch lc ienl1~der 1984:'J'lJfi 1'188.
I TnI' R1-prt'Si'tlllllioflllf l~vitlf'IIf:f' 21

n. Verolla: FrJllmlli 1987. No. 30. Robillson 1975. 157-9. 164-70. Wieshaden: Esp. c.-n.r. II ; Robinson
1975. PI. 469. Aquineum: ibid.. 1' 1. 470: Schober 1923. No. 162. !-its/is: Suefonius. Go;/1$26.4; Speidel
1993
Zit Schlciermaeher l9114
29. Brilain: Ande rson 1984. Africa: Bcnsedd ik 19]9. T ombslOlle proportions based 011 Esp.. Esp. GtTII/.• and
Hili.
30. Corinth: Kos 1978. I'hilippi: Schleiermaeher 1984. Nu. 98. Cro)" Hill: Cou lslOn 1988b. T ipasa:
Benseddik. 1979. I' igs. 1-3. 5; 5chlciermaeher 1984. Nos. 6:,-7
31. Third-cent. SId/v: Noelke 1986; (".oulsfon 1987. ,\ Ie:<andria: Br«ci~ 191-1. Fig. -I I: Ikrnand 1966. Pis.
13- 15:C:lSliglione 1968.1 14-15.
32. f.qllill"i si"P'lortr. Schafer 1979. Figs. 5-8. C f. Speidel 1981-82: Speidel 199-13: Coulston 2000. 9-1-7:
Busch ZOOI
3.,. Aquilcia: FrJnmni 1987. No. U. SfrJsbourg: Esp. 5496. Lim:: Eckhardt 1981. No. 57. Cf. Esp. 39-1.1
(Amiens): FrJnwn; 19i17. Nos. 12- 17,20- 1.2.) (Aquileia). CtlfojnKltlrii: Scblcierillacher 1984. Nos. 49,
ilil. 90. 93; Nuber 1997.
3-1. Ephesus: Schleiermacher 1984. No. IlZ. Siffen: l .chner 1986. Valican: Amclung 1903. No. 163. 1'1. 30:
IklOdim:lli 197 1. PI. 65. T erme: de I.achenal "01. 1984. V.ZO. Apamca: Baity 19117: 19118; Baity and
Ren,c:en 1993: Couls lOn fOTlhCt)llling h. Gaefa: I'ellmann 1957. Ar1 nn: Esp. 4021; Gabelmann 197.,.
Sai ntes: I~ obi n son 1975, PI. 203.51 I~cmy: Esp. 11 -I. Gladiators: e.g. Grall! 1967, 1'15.6.9,1 2, Z!l-9.3 1
35. Portonaeeio: K""h and Sichlermann 19i12, 1'1. 76: Bc rtinelri" (II. 19f15, No. IV.4. l.orimr. Robinson
1975.184. Hunt saT\.~)phagi: Koch and Si"hlermann 1982, Pis. 79-9Z. I.udo--isi:ibid.. I'ls. 77-8;Andre~e
1977. ['1. 1-14. Red Sea:Srrong 1980, l'I.Z2Z.
36. Allie Sltfar. Cl3irmonl 1993; Osborne 1997. l'hnlogl1lphs: Ward 199 1. -14-7. 2.'iO-1. Roman corpus:
Cuulston 200--1: fonhcoming h.
37. Alba lulia: CoulslOn 1995: m~hop 2002. 62-7. Condul3Chi and DlicoI';ciu 1971. Fig. 117. DONI:
Maxfield 1981. 1'1.5.
38. Esp. 582Z: Robinson 1975. Pis. 196-9. Sec Busing 1982: Frenz I99Z. Nos.5-6 .
.19. ~ la l' illy: Esp. 2067. AI~ey: Kijnzl 1975. No.6. Old Carlisle: Wrighl ~nd Phillips 1975. No. 238. Aalcn:
Fil/.inger 1983 . .... g..i. Jupitcr Columns er,,: Esp. 46%. 525 1. 8437: Cf. No. 1623. Palestrina: Ihnd ierJ
1977. No. 31 . ~ I anlol"a: Robinson 1975, Pb. 450--1,472: Koeppcl 19lBa. No ..n . Cluj: /WII/(/"itn 1%9.
G 19 1. Im c rcisa: BarkOczirffll. 1954. PI. L'O...,"""X1.8. Ei ning: \Vabner 197.), No. 477
40. CouISlUn I9115: 1986:2003a.
41. Crime~: Kiescrirzky and \\'31~. inger 1':109. Parthian/Sassanid: Il errm~nn 1980: 1983: Herrmann and
"1aekcn~.ie 191!9: Vanden Be rghe and Schil}pmann 1985; \'on Gall 1990. Palmyru: Colledge 1976:
Tanabe 1986
42. Cdl· lberians: Stary 199-1; QUCS-:ldl Sanl. 1997a. Osuna: Garcia y Ikllido. 1949. No. -1 28. Gauls:
ESII.35-6. 2372. 7833-7.861 .1,8652-6.9155. Numidians: 110m :l.I1d ROger 1979. PI. lOi; f~pit"'
IIHMY I. 1984. u:. ·,\bit.:.,'; Vachi! res: Esp. 35.
43. ":~'1uiline: Lc hmllln- Hartlcbelll9Z6, Figs. 8.IZ. Pompeii: Fr(\lich 1991. 1'1. 19.2. MYlhology: Robinson
1975. Fig. 18. Bald rics: Walker and Bierbrier 1997, No. 117-11. Dura: CUmon! 1926. I'ls. XLIX- L: Ba urrf
/II. 19.1.1. Fig. 16. 1'1. XV II: 1~()su)l't1.eff 193-1. PI. XXXVI..,; R"S!OI·ll.eff ~I/Il. 19.,6. 1'1. XLl I.I ; Kruel ing
1956: Jam"s 200--1. 1'1. 1-5. Fig. 18. 20. I.}Jr al-.\ Iad inah: l.MXor 1981, 1"0. 290. Lu:..:or:
Kalel'fezou- Maxe iner 1975. Syr,lcuse: \\'"Ibon 1990. 1'1. XII. Via L:lfina: T ronzo 1986. Fig. 92.
44. i'ia'lZa f\ rmcrina: Caran di ni"/II. 1982; \\r,bo n 19M3. Archers: Cou1$lOn l'IIi.'i.2J8. Figs. 36-8: Piccirillo
I99Z. 59. 154-5, IS7, I'l l , Z56. Ru....;nna: Vol ba" h 1961 . 1' 1. 234: I'aolut-..:i 197 1. -16-7.
45. NOIilitl: Goodburn and Banholcmcw 1976: Berger 1981. IN Rlbus 1j,llitil : I lassall and Ireland 1979;
l.iebeschuelz 1994. Treatises: Marsden 197 1: Lendle 1975: Blyth 1992: 1..:1 Ikgina 1999.lIim/and
Aml"ii/: Vl'f"gilitlfl{/ 1945: Bcc:llfi 1960. 1'15.66-8.
46. Figu1"Cll: Robinson 1975, Fig. IZZ, 1'1. 474. 501; Tru;an~ 19111: pers. obs. t\unsthi~IOrischc Museum
(Vienn~), Bologn~ Musco eil·ieo. IAlni ~ I uscum (Italy), Coloni3 Sarmi1.egethuSOl Museum (Romania).
Nlwa: Alxlul-llak 1954-55, Pis. IV-VII . Vessel: Schafer 1989. Coffin: ~ I urra}' Thrci pbnd 1953.
Missorit/: IJc lbruek 1933. 1'1.57.79,94-7. Coins: e.g. RIC I,GoiIlS No. 4S; NI'TO. No. 68. 130-6. 49 1: Ci,/bt,
No. 297-304. 462-8: Brilliant 1%3. Brooches: Wamser 2000, Cal. No. 226b, 229. Cal'all)'m3 n: ibid., Cal.
No. 22&a. Josephus.lrfris}, U""· .'.96.
47. Ephesos: Onen 1983. 11 9. Wood .sculpture: /\ Ifs 1941. Fig. 9: Casey 199 1, 21. T errJCOll3s: Bandinelli
~ nd Gi ul iano 1973. Figs. 34-1. 366•.172; Eiehberg 1987, 1'1. Ill; van BockeI1 9~9. Canosa: RoslO\'Ueff
22 ROIIIIIII .Ihlimry Eqlfiplllnll

19~. Figurines ~nd plaques: Ekhhcr~ ]91'17. 1'1,. +-8: IkJII' Jnd I(osw\"v .df 19,,], Pis. XXIV..V; (j~mbcr
19MI. Fig..tO: I-Ic rrm~nn 191:19.1'1. V.
.Ix. R!l) VI, Fi ~, _ 1>9.6: 70.1: IX. Fi~. 44: Jbd,blZ 19,';.,. Fi)1:. I: Oldell.' lein 197(" Nus . .l5J....1j7. 9.i l-2:
"lb''''''·J{)nc~ 3nd \Iik e! 1'1114. No. ". I!'!; Fi~du;r3nd Spin<Jlc r 191H. Fi ~. -I(),I: lk;313nd Fell)!;'::rc IW!7:
jallle,l004. :\0. 1. IllO-l . .lZ l .
.N. llurJ: ( :urnOll t 192h. I'1. XCVI II : IbllrJ",J I{o,tovw.:ff 19,1 1. 1'1. X I ,I .XIJII : Ibur da/. 19.H. Figs. IS.
ll-.', 1'1. XX- XX II : 1{()~1<l\'I/.cff 1'>.14. 1'1. XXXV: 1{()~(,)\"(I.cffN(II. 19,\(., Fil,:.l'!: 19.N. I'I. I.V I: 1<)52. Fig.
(,: J J"'O ZOO·.. Fig. 17. Zl-.I. 117. :\friCJ: (:11. VI II . 17971:1 (pCh. CUllllll. I)r Ab" I{ushwonh). Bu Njcm:
Ikhuif3\1<:l89.Fig. ,i ,
 2 The Arch aeological Evidence
] ntroduction

It oughl 10 be simple enough: artefac!s survive in [he archaeological record, [hey arc re-
covered in some way, and rhen we stud y them. nfon unalcly, nor hing is ever thar
simple. The circumst;tllccs in which those objects ca me to be deposited in, and form
part of, that record c.m greatly affect how we interpret them, so it is essential that, as
with representational evidence, the srudenr of military equipment is aware of the
st rengths, weaknesses, and pitfalls of Ihe archaeological evid e nce.
GretH advances in archaeological mcthooology have been made in Ihe 20th centu ry,
although artefactual studies have, until quite recently, tended to concent rate on the
unusual or rhe :1rrracrivt:, rather [han rhe rourine or mundane. At tht: same time, the
important collections of excavated mili tary equipment were usually those recovert:d
with lin1c or no archaeological information. Nowadays, arrefacts have their precise lo-
cation in thrce dimensions noted, along with the deposit in which t hey were resting,
enabling the student to refer to the dating evidence, such as pottery or coins, that may
have bt:en associated with it. '
This son of detailed recording was presaged by Curle's excavations at Newstead,
where a series of pits produced whole ranges of artefact classes, strat ified together
with pottcry and coin evidence. Cu rle's publication of the pit conte nts, although lack-
ing the SOrt of detailed section drawings that wou ld be the p rac tice today, nevertheless
enables eq uipment from these deposits to be placed within one of the two major aban-
donment episodes. Ilycontrasr, equipment reco\'crcd from within the fort itsclfcomes
with no such information and, whi lst in many cases it is likcly that the objects belong
to the latest phase, th is assumption cannot automatically be made withom any record
of the stratigraph ica l conditions pertai ning. Thu s News tead lies at the threshold be-
[wt:en the oldt:r way of regard ing artefacts, and the ncwer mt:thods of record ing. What
sets Curle's report apart is his synthetic treatment of the material he excavated: few
directors since have displayed quite such asympathetic approach to artefacts nor given
them the same prominence.!
The most common prohlem e ncountered by the student of Roman military equ ip-
ment is the poor quality (or even total lack) of publ ication of much of the
archaeological evidence, and this is true of all countries producing objects (although,
admittedly, somc are worse than others). r>.-lany important collections of material , such
as t he objects found at Alesia in the mid- 19th CCntury, st ill await fu ll publ ication.}
Archaeologists' neglect of small find s, arguably a react ion against t he mOTe arte-
fact-oriented antiquarian ism ofp3s( ccnturies, means that obl ique photographs, hasty
or over-styl ized li ne-drawings (frequent ly lacking a drawn sca le), and a complete rc-
fusal to relate the artefacts (Q their sWlI igraphic contexts arc all too common, as is a
marked reluctance to state d imensions (relying on illustrations alone is a recipe for d i-
saster). The practice of illustrating on ly a proporrion of items is eClually pernicious
(air hough understandable, given The eost constraints on many projects), but not nearly
24 ROIIIIIII Ilfi/i/{lI'Y E'IlIipllll'1l!

so deplorable as the (thankfully now diminishing) f;ls hion for pbc i ngsm~11I find reports
on microfiche: publication is about the dissemination, nor concealment, of informa-
tion. It is not necessarily true that a specialiS[ has TO see the object itse lf in order to
make an ide ntification, since good line drawings arc usually sufficiently diagnostic. al-
though such inspcl~tions arc essential TO ren:al small dctails about manufacture. use. or
damage.
It is surely the duty of the escavator to ensure that nor only is the k1rgcst feasible
sample of equipment fully illustrated with line drawings (with a drawn scale, of
course), but that each piece Can be traced back three-dimensionally TO its original
provenance on the site (whether (hat be securely stratified in a pit. or a stray find in
topsoil). Only then docs military equipment hccome a dynamic part of the wider ar-
chaeologic:ll picture. rather than just an embellishment for the pages of the final
report.
The trade in illicilly acq uired military equ ipment has become an increasing prob-
lem in recent decades. Illegal metal-detecting on known archaeological sites,
tomb-robbing. ;lIld the r:l1lsacking of sites in war-wnes has led to a disturbingly large
number of equipment artefacts for sale on the internet and through unscrupulous
art-dealers. In particu lar. decor.lTed pieces. such as belt-plates or horse-harness fit-
tings. command inflated prices amJ indi\'idual collectOrs have been known to create
and warp markels for ancient arms and armou r. \\any sec this trade as pernicious for a
number of reasons. It is often in conrravenrion of na!ional anriqu it ic.;s laws regarding
excavat ion, trade and export. Im proper removal offinds divorces thc.;m from archaeo-
logical con tcxt. site identity, and somet imes even coumry of origin. :IS. infamously,
with the Sc.;vso treasure of L ite Roman si lver plate (wh ich. incidcnrally, includes on
onc dish details of l.ate Homan s~ld dlcry). i\ lorco\'er. once a market is established. de-
mand may be mel by the product ion of forgeries. com plicat ing typological and other
academic studies. Helmets art! a good case in point. T he ' Iolcdo Helmet ('\olcdo.
Ohio, i"'!usc.;um of Art) is a f:lirly obvious/a/slllJI based as it is so closely on details de-
rived from rm:rropoliran Roman scu lpturc. I-Iowcvc.;r, helmcts in rhc Axel Guttmann
Collection, which have recently been sumptuously published, present more complex
difficulties in tht! absencc of a rigorous programmt! of metallurgical :lOalyses. On thc
other hand , it might be argucd that it is unsatisfa ctory and frustratin g to ignore as po-
lential forgeries all black market items, but nevertheless a healthy amoulll of
scepticism must be employed, assum ing guilt until innoce nce is proven. ~
One of the most persistent notions to he found in Roman military archaeolo/:,'Y is
that of accidcntalloss. ' 10 some extent, it is borrowed from the study of ancient coins,
for it is well-known that people of any money-using economy will, by virtue of the ve!)'
natu re oflheireurrcncy (e.g. small. easily-misplaced coinage), lose it occasionally. Thi s
paradigm of artefact loss has also been applied (Iu il t! freely 10 mi litary equipment,
without tOO much thought for Ihe val idity of such an assumption. However, it is one
thing to drop a small denomination C{lin and be either unwilling or unable to find it.
but quite another to 'lose' a spearhead or sword. Nt:vt!rtheless, accidental loss is seri-
ously suggt!stt:d by some writers as a reason for the prescncc of Rom:m milita!)'
equipment, parti cularly helmets, in water.s
2 TIt, Ardlorologiflll Evidm" 25

This is not to say t hat some items of military eq uipmen t might not be los t byacci-
dent - small decorative studs, for instance, are one case where thi s is a possibility, or
even materiel found in a shipwreck or associated with a catasrrophi c event like the
e ruption of Vesuvius. However, it is important to stress that this cannot have been a
major facto r in the deposit ion of equipment in t he archaeological record. So how did it
get the re, if not byaccidem?6
Understandabl\', scholars could not resist the hunt for ancie nt battldields, trad i-
tionally invoking' the longed-for goal of findi ng vaSt deposits of weapons and
equipme nt as t he true indicator of the physica l location of a baule. In fact, t hi s is a nor-
mallya quite unrealistic expectation . In the pre-industrial world few cultures could
afford to throwaway \'aluable metal resources (even broken weapons could be
re-forged), re ndering any such del iberate deposits all the more significant. When Au-
gustus' gene ral Vi nnius made a grand gesture of deposit ing spoi ls of wa r in a river, it
was noted that thc normal Roman pran ice was to burn t hem (presumably mean ing
burning the wooden shafts of spears or boards of shields, havi ng first removed the
metal fittings). Stripping the dead on bat t lefield s is depicted for example, at Hastings
(/\0 1066) on the Bayeux Tapestryand in Native Amcrican illustra tions of the Bat tleof
Little Big Horn (AD 1876). T he site ofKalkricse. now general ly accepted as associated
with the defeat of Varus by the German tri bes in AD9, has yielded small items plus the
skeletal remains of humans and pack-animals, but ve'1' few substantial ;anefacts, such
as the face mask from a Roman caval ry sporrs he lmet. Th is should now come as no su r-
prise, not least because the site was subject to a series of event horizons after conflict
ceased : movement, torture and execution of prisoners; search for booty (espcci;ally all
metalwork ) and gat hering up for division betwee n the tribal grou pings involved; Ro-
man re tu rn to the si te six years late r to dispose of human remains ;and e rect ;a
monumenr; presumed subsequent German distu rbance of mass-gr.wes and monu-
ment. Indeed, the destruction of Varus' army on the march occu rred over several days
and a large area, and as in many other historic;al cases, the term 'confl ict lansellpe' is far
more fitt ing t hlln 'batt lefield', although the latter has more popular appeal. The ar-
ch;aeological record may have been influenced fa r beyond the formal. relatively
smal l-scale ancient fi eld-of-ba t tle, by foraging, layi ng waste and .~ trategic or grand -tac-
t ical movemen ts of fo rces. Mass-gmves rat her t han masses of artef;acts seem to be the
clearest ind icator of a confl ict landscape, but even these mrely conrai n large numbers
of artefacts because of st ripping when Ixxiies were moved. At Towton in I\D 1461 the
dead were buried with very linle clothing or armour; at Wi sby inAD 1361 a sma ll num-
ber of cuimsses were included in the graves perhaps on ly because they were nox iously
soiled and the hot summer's day demanded swift burial. At the attested Roman battle-
field site at Krt.!feld-Gellep (Gelduba), the silt.! of an e ngagemen t between the
Romans and the rebellious Batavians in AD 69, cavalry horses have bee n found buried
where they fell (horses, once dead, are difficu lt to move, so arc most easi ly rolled into a
conven ie ntly-dug pit) , but only a hand fu l of artefacts were recovered from over 70
horse burials.7
J\'lass graves or t he rcma ins of funeral pyres afe the only likely indiearors of a battle-
fi eld site, since it docs not seem to be the case that mi1 it3ry equipment wall deposited
in any quantit ies. Sites of sieges offer more substant ial st ruetur;al archaeology and are
26 RnmllH .I1t1/IOry F..quipmml

fl?,l1'" Il): Pltmofmi~(Jf Dum-Europos.

more ea.sity identified than open battles because they often in\'oh'cd fixed positions,
named locations. and such fe:nufcs as v3l1ations, sk:gc-ramps and mines. In ancfactual
terms finds of rhe most numerous and least easily rccovcmbJc items arc to be ex-
pecred: scatters of projectiles such as arrow-heads, sling-bullets. artillery missiles and
swnc balls. l)i~lrihutions of lead bulkts. manufactured in haste on site and shot ::u in-
surgent 11-1si:1I\5 in AD 28. h:l\C heen plotted at Veben. If a locale continued (0 be
occupied arler a siege then the S:lmc 'tidying up' processes would h:l\c applied as in
other conflier landscapes. Rarely were subsr:lnti:ll masses of equipment abandoned. as
for cX:lmpJc in ditches during Caesar's siege of Alcsia (52 I~C). At first sight
Du ra-Europos also seems to contradict this model because of its mass of recovered
equ ipment and its depopulation after being captured b} the Sassanid I\: .... ians in the
mid-AD 2505. ll o\\c\-er, apart from the predictable projectile scatter, almo't all the
substantial finds such as weapons, cuirasses, shields and horse-armours \\ere preserved
in discrete and unusually scaled conre:\.ts: under the reinforcing bank behind the west
wall, in coll:!psed tower chambers, and in siege-mines. Nevertheless, conflict land-
scape archacolo/-,,) is a new and burgeoning field which is now beginning to re<:cive due,
specialist attention, Recent work on conflicts in\"ohing gunpowder projcctile >;cattcrs,
such as Palo. \Ito (.\D 18-16), has produced spectacu la r results, and future application
of de\-eloping methodologies to Roman landscapes holds great promise.~

Site Deposition
.\n impof(ant clue to how miliwl)' equipment usually entered the archaeological re-
cord on Roman military sites was provided by the excavations at the tcgional)" base of
 27

Inchtu rhil in Scot land. In a p it , in the bu ilding usually ident ified as a workshop, were
found tt:n [Ons of iron nails and nine cart lyres. Rich mond, fol lowing a hint in t he hi sto-
rian I-krodian, suggested that these had been buried 10 deny \'aluablc iron to the
Britons once the Homan army had retrea ted (s ince iron could be fe-forged inro weap-
ons ro be used agai ns t the I{omans) . This is only one of many indications of the army
clearing a site before abandon ing if. At Newstcad. a large nu mbe r of pits were exca-
vated omside the fort. with in the area of the anncxc, and many of these contained
broken and d amaged pieces of equipment, as well as a wide range of other rubbish. A
number of possible reasons for the Ncws[cad pit deposit s h3\'C been suggested , includ-
ing enemy d estruct ion and 'ritual' purposes, bm i\bn ning has shown that del iber:HC
clearance by the arm y m ust be considered , goi ng on [0 p ropose tha t the objects were
'surp lus and damaged e quipme nt buried because it could not easily be tra nsported by
a full y lade n fo rce about to reHeat thro ugh hostile country.'~
The evidence of deliberate site clearance and demoliti on has bee n aecumuhning
over the years. For a long t ime interpre te d as destruct ion due to enemy action, archae-
ologists now sus pect that much of the hurning carried out on Homan military sites was
the resu lt of the sys tcmatic dismantl ing of structures. An y available receptacles -
d itches. wells. lat ri ne pits, water tanks - were used 10 deposit t he rubbish cleared out
from t he bu ildings, and t his would comprise nO[ on ly scrap equ ipment , hut also do-
mestic refuse of various organic and inorganic typeS. lO
T hese twO examples arc exceptional onl y in the scale of the deposition. The discov-
ery of equ ipment in circu mstances wh ich suggest abandonment is common on most
Roman military sites, and the vast majority of such material has qu it e clearly been
damaged before loss. Moreove r, items which appear 10 be undamaged may in fact have
su ffered what we m ight rerm 'invisible 3rrrit ion': a spearhead may be in immaculate
condition when deposited. but it wou ld be useless if its wooden shaft were broken
(::and many spearheads in the Corbridge H oard had broken shafts still attached to them
- Fig. 11) . T his is also true o f larger and more com plex ::artefacts, part icularly those wit h
a number of compone nt types ('/orimggllletlftJllt', for exa mplc. ::although most ly iron and
brass, d e pended upon lea the r 10 make it funct ional). In fact, some artefacts, such as
'/orim gg",mfOln' fittin gs, that were p::arricularly vu lnerable 10 damage, are probably
over-rep rese nted in (he arch::aeologic::al record. 11
The retention of broke n objects points towards one thing: recycl ing. For precisdy
the same reason that thc Romans buried the nails and tyres at lncht uthil-namely the
val ue of the sc rap metal - they would need to recycle every p iece of meTal That was no
longe r in usc; failure to do so meant that new metal had to be mined, processed , and
then manufact ured into artefacts. Recycling scrap kept thc de mand for resources low
(part icularl y important when we bear in mind the fact that the nearest sou rce for zinc
in Roman Britain may have been Aac hen, in German ia Inferio r). Thus it docs not t::ake
long to work OUt that the Romans took most of t hei r me tal wit h them when they left a
site. In most cases, the proportion o f artefacts found com pared wit h even the mini-
mum proposed duration of occupa tion, shows how few items per year would be lost by
any 'accidental' mechanism. I!
Ironically, one of thc bes t pieces of evidence for the SOrt of things the army took
wirh the m when they departed comes from a collection that was Jeft beh ind: the
28 R011l(ll! .Ilililtlry £qllipml'1lf

famous Corbridge HmmJ (Fig. 11). Consisti ng of portions of'/01im J"K'11f'fI/(I/(i , spear-
heads, and a whok range of itcrns ca refu lly packed in a wooden chest (with t he armour
wrapped in doth), t hi s looks vcry much like a group of objects packed for 1r:lIlSpOn and
t hen abandoned for some unknown reason (ah hough it may well have been a last-m in-
Uf e dccision), 13
T he main implication is t hat the archaeologist is presented not wit h a picture of ev-
eryday life in a mil itary establ ishment. but a snapshm of a few hours' hect ic and
heterodox act ivity. ivloreovcr, this is all tied in with wider military str:ltt:gic consider-
ations and events - s Ul' h as the invasion of Britain - which necess itated large army
movements. frC(luently led to the abandonment of sites (and possibly the ir subse-
q uent reoccuparion). T hus mi lit:lry eq uipment exc.wated on Roman sites was usually
deposited because of some st rategic move, so if t here were no great mil itaryoperarions
in hand , no equ ipment wou ld be deposited.
' P,vo major ep isodes of military e(lu ipmc nt deposit ion are dctectahle in thc West.
First , the re was the I.:xpans ion ism of the early Prineip.lte, with the atxmJonmen t ofth l.:
Voralpe nland military bases and thl.: move w the Danube, t he invas ion of Brita in and
the rearrangements brough t about by t hat, then the consequcnces of t he event.~ of AD
69. ' I'he second major event was the abandonment of large tracts of land in thc 3rd cen-
tu ry AD: Dacia and the An wn ine front ie r in Germ:1Il ia .md Ractia, producing anot her
rich hau l of m.lterial (sec Chapter 7). I lowever, we know liule abou t t he equipment of
t he 2nd centul)' AD, because rhl.:re was compara tive ly less mil itary act ivity in this pe-
riod t ha t m igh t h:ad TO t he sort of de pos ition we have been discussing. Re peated
an nual campaign ing would normally leave lin le tmee by way of mi li tary equipment,
and exca\'.lt ion of 'temporary' camps has oftcn shown how these were left almost bare
of artefacts. Artefacts from urban sites. on the other hand, may be d ue either to t he
presenceof :m earl ie r military ins tallat iun beneat h dlecivi[ site (usually the case in the
West in the early Principate), or because t roops were actually stationed in a TOwn, as
happened in all periods in t he East, and from at Ic;\st the 2nd eentul)' t\D onward s in
the West. Apart from some impress ions made by press ing ite ms of 2nd- to3 rd-eentury
AD mili tary equ ipment into bricks before firing, and some finds made in recellt ski lkd
urban excava tions, WI)' little arref:lctual evidence h:ls been recordcd for Rome. T his is
pred ictable, cvcn despite t hc huge coneentT:ltion of troopS stat ioned in the imperial
ca pita l. l~
It is ax iomatic that , with a few no table except ions. litt le material is known from the
eastcrn provinces of t he Empire, bu t t hi s need not be purely a result ofthl.: shorTcom-
ings of arc haeological met hodolol:,'y in these arc:ls. Conside rable amou nts of
eq uipment arc known from i\b uretania, so ot her processes (h indering the Cntl)' of
eq ui pment into the archaeologic:11 record ?) may have been at work.I .1
Theoret ically, the d istribut ion of finds of equ ipment wit hin mil itary sit es ought to
be informative, but the reality of the situat ion is that rhe publicat ion of archaeological
excava tions of t he period all-too-seldom provides the SOrt of detai l abou t the prove-
nance of mate rial to perm it such ,\ stu dy, as was the case with Du ra- Euro pos (sce
above). Nevert heless, in the few cases where it has proved possibl c, we see that e qu ip-
ment tends to be found in the barrack area of fo rr lets, fofts, and fortresses and not in
t he :Idm inistrati\'e block. Presumably t his was d ue to sold iers kee ping any damaged
2 rh, ArdtfJc%gim/ Evidmce 29

,
Figure 11: Corbridge HOtJrtl rerOIlSfnlf'/ioll dr{j~illg (by Peter COllllolly).
.10 Rom(fll !IIi/ifary Eq"iPlllt'IIl

r.;quipmcIH until they could get it repaired (Chapter 9), when it could be mm'cd 10 the
workshop for reprocessing. C:lrc ful record ing has allowed the cxcavawrs :It Augs! ro
p lOt equipment distributions both spatially and temporally to rcvcalingcfTcct. 'l cmpo-
Tary camps are notoriou s for Ihe fact that they seldom produce any finds . 1b

Hoa rds (Fig. II )

A number of hoards of equipment have made important contributions ro the study of
milil :lTy materiel. Some of Ihese (especial ly a nOl:lblc 3rd-centu ry AD group from the
German and Kaet ian front ie rs) may have been booty. wh ilst mhers (l ike the Corbridge
or Ribchcsrer hoards) were pcrh:lps cOllcc:lled in an :mcmp' [Q prevent the f3W mate-
rial falling inm the wrong hand s.
Those from Srraubing and Kunzing included fin e cavalry spOrts equipmem, as well
liSmorc mundane tools and finings . Hoards were nor infrt::qucmly buried in a con-
taine r of some kind (presumably because it made them easier to carry), often a large
vesse l as at Alfaro (RepubliC:lIl) or Straubing Ord cen tury), but the finds circum-
stances of mher deposits, like the 160 items of Ikpublican wC:lponry found in [he
~Impan of the hi ll fo n at Smihel. arc less clear-cuI. Although there may appear to be a
superficial resemblance wit h the deposition of coin hoards, it seems likely that there is
a greater range of explanat ions for these unusual deposits of miliutryequipment, some
at lcast of wh ich we can never know. 17

\Vater Deposits and Voti ve Offerings (Figs.12- 13)

It has recently been calculate d that a high proport ion of early Imperial helmet find s-
about 80% - come from watery contexts of some kind , usually major European rivers
such as the Rhine and Danube . Swords and daggers (both often still in their scabbards)
are also frequently found in this way. At one time. it was suggested that soldiers lost
such equ ipment during difficu lt ferry or bridge crossings, but this seems emincnt ly un-
likely. When the penalties for loss of equipment were so severe, there was ever)'
incentive for a soldier to keep a tight grip on his helmet, sword, and dagger as he
crossed a river. We have already Seen how the not ion of'accidentalloss' docs not work
for site finds of cqu iplllt.!nt, and a diachronic examination of finds evidence from wa-
tery contexts suggests that the same is truC . I~
Torbrugge showed how find s from many eras tended to cluster around certain points
on major rivers like the Rhine and suggested that these deposits might be inte rpreted as
volive. The prac tice of dedicating finds to the b'Ods was certainly well-established in the
Greek world (hel mets being popular), although many of these appear JUSt to have been
left in te mples. An inscription on a bronze plaque, found ncar ' Ibngn:s in Belgium, re-
cords Q. Cat ius Libo Nepos, a centurion of Itgio J/I CP"f"IIf{;((1 dedicating a shield and a
spear to the goddess Vihansa (Fig. 12) . Another inscript ion of AD 297, from Durostorum,
records a probable votive offering of silvered shields and swords. An asst:mblage from a
temple site at Ernpcl may also fall within th is category of deposit. T his practice ct.!rtain ly
2 The ArcnaeoloJ"riml Evidence 31

Figure 12: VOIWt plat/ul' recording Ihe offering of a spear and shield II) (l Cflilurion of legio III
Cyrenaica (Tongm).

fits into our pictu re of the contract religion practi sed by thc Celtic peoples and the
Romans, whereby some material price was paid in exchange for a favour. T his is typified
by the find s from the springs feeding the Roman baths at Bath (which, curiously, in-
cluded a washer from a catapult), Thus it is not difficult to imagine a sold ier, in the heat
of bartle, vowing some item of personal value (and soldiers had few things of greater
val ue than their equipment) to a deity in exchange for his safety. 'fhi s need not imply, as
some have suggested, that it was the higher ranks indulging in this (the fin e nature of
rhe objects does not necessarily indicate that they must have belonged to officers).
However, the assumpt ion that such a practice did indeed take place prese nts some prob-
lems for us. one of wh ich is a legal onc; soldiers were forbidd en to discard their
equipment and were required always to possess a helmet, sword, and shield. Perhaps
they bought replacements before discarding the old items,'9
This phe nomenon was almosr ce[[a inly not a purely Roman one. The deposition in
the Rhine of a hoa rd of cavalry e{luipment and metal vessels at Doorwerth, possibly
also a neighbouring hoard from Xanten, may have been due to its having been acquired
as booty and deposited as a votive offering by rebels during the Batavian revolt, Z\J
Closely akin to water depos its are those assem blages of material found in bogs (onct:
sacred lakes), particularly in area outsid e rhe formal boundarie.~ of the Roman Empire.
f\'lorc than twenty sites arc located in Sweden, Den mark and Schleswig-Holstein.
They con mined both Roman and native material, as wt: 11as a proport ion of Roman ized
native artefacts (notably swords) . There has been much debate as to precisely how th is
material came into the possession of northern barbarian peoples. The one rhing that is
certain is that the extraord inarily good conditions of preservation mean that some of
t he finest surviving Roman military equipment comes from these bog deposits
( Figs,13. 95). The bu lk of this material seems to have accumulated during the period
from the .l rd to the 5th centu ries AD (with some outliers: I-IjoTtspring r. 350 Be ;
Vimose, three depositions r. AD 70-150, c. AD 150, (. An 2 10-60; Kragehul , four deposi-
tions over r. AD 150-450; Ejsool, c. AD 200; Il1erupAdcl, (·. AD 200-500; Nydam, four or
more deposit ions c. AD 240-475 ). Again, th is material may represenr booty.!]
32 ROllltlIlMi/iflll)'/l.r;III/)1II1!!I1

~l'1
fJ[I) ~~
Fig"", 13: Bnldricfittillgsfrom Villlose (from E1Igel"lm/! 1869).
2 He Archaeological Evidence 33

,====~ ___ ....;;

1m Figure 14: BlIfiflls fi-'irhr.::eaponJ-(IrComcrbllf)'

Burials with Weaponry (Fig. 14)

Although it was not the normal practice for Roman soldiers to be buried wit h their mi li-
rary eq uipment, examples of military equipmen t deposited as grave goods do
somet imes occur. T he fact of thei r existence should itself be taken as a reason for cau-
t ion on the pan of the studen t of arms and armour, precisely because of their unu sual
nature. Burials like those at Camelon and ]\'l ehrum may we ll be 'native' t roops serving
as irregula rs wit h the Roman army, but ne ithe r the thoroughly Romanized burial from
Lyon (thought to be associated wit h Septimius Severus' victory there in AD 19 7), nor
the curious Canterbury double burial (Fig. 14). are so easily classified in rh is way. More
com plex mechanisms may lie behind cavalry bu rials such as those from Chassenard,
Catalka, or Nawa. In each case, it has been suggested t hat a Roman ized member of the
indigenous nobil ity was signall ing hi s affi liat ions by his adopt ion of Roman military
equ ipme nt. In t he case of the Catalka burial, however, t here is more than onc cu ltu ral
infl uence at play, wit h Chinese jade scabbard fittings and steppe openwork decorated
metal fittings alongs ide the more fam il iar Roman items.u
The practice increases in t he la te r Roman pe riod, although it is far from clea r
whether th is is du e to its increasing popularity with ' Romans' (however such a group
may he defined), or because of the infl ux of peoples from outside t he empire who cus-
tomari ly practised weapons burial. Some burials outwit h the bounds of t he empire
included Roman or Roman-i nfl uenced military equipment. These may be due to
booty, trade, or any numberof other exp lan ations, reflect ing attacks on, or service with ,
 ROII"m MililfllJ' EqlliplIIl'IIl

Ihe Homan authorities, T he re certainly seems 10 be some evidence of Homan military

e(luipment appea ring :IS trinkets in Anglo-Saxon burials in Hritain (a nO! unreasonahle
in terpreta tion of mili lar), arte fau~ found in fema le burials),!'!

Excavation a nd Pub li cation

Until quite recentl y. it wou ld have been true to say that Ihe hulk ofm ililaryequipmenr
recovered fro m the :If('h:leological record came e il her from casual find s or from older ex-
ca":lIions whcre the archaeological tech niques lacked re fin ement, 1-I00\'I;:\'er, Ihe
all imde of morc recent eXC;I\';ItOrs to thcirartefactual e\'idence has been une\'en to~a y
Ihe least.
In fact , the publ icat ion of military eq uipme lll is dogged hy the art-hi storical ohses-
sions of many comment;ltors. often leading to exagger,lIcd chtim s ;lbout th e rciat ive
merits of a piece . A (·I;tssil" e.x:lll1ple of this latter phenome non i .~ the so-called Sword of
' Iilx;rills (Fig. 41 ..1). found :It 1\ 1:linz on the banks of the Rhine :Ind now in the posses-
.~ ion of tilt: Briti sh 1 \ I11seum. T he fa med propaganda SCene on the scabbard mouth
plate. featu ri ng the Emperor ·Iillerius. has led to th is piece being considered as a
one-off gift. orone ofa series of presentat ion swords. ' I'he asscnion Ihal t his must have
been the weapon of an officer has seldom been called illlo doubl. except when Ihc
piece has been considered in COlllex t agains t the background of sim ilar classes of ilem.
\Ioreo\'er. the imprecise usc of l:mguage has fuelled Ihe myth of this weapon: I'ariously
descrihed :IS 'siln:red' and 'gilded'. scient ifi c analysis has shown Ihe decora red plates
to have been made of tinnl.!d brass, thl.! usual materi~ll for any embossed military deCCl-
r;u ion . T his is JUSt one eX~lTllp l e of attempt s 10 impose quest ionable modern sets of
va lues on ancient artefa("ls. ~ 4
Whilst the trend lO(by is towards a more func tion:1 1 apprcciation of arr cfacts, it is
not inCOlll·ci,'ahlc that Ihis tOO will seem a q uest ionable approach in onlY:1 mailer of a
few ye:n s. The one thing t hat d ocs nor cha nge about archacologi('al scholarship is ils
periodic mutations.

Reconstruction Archaeo logy (Figs. 15-16)

The path through the m ire of reconstruction (o r 'experimental') arehaeolol:,'Y is I'e ry

narrow and ewn the most reputable of sc holars ('an eas ily be led astray. ' I'hat is not 10
say that il is not a thoroughly respectable and worthwhile pursuit. but merely to empha-
sizc tha! it is all tOO easy to lo.~e s igh r of one of Ihe prime tencts of rcconslrllction work :
il can only sho\\ hO\1 ...ometh ing might havc been done, nUl ho\\ il \1 as done. In the
end. the re'iuh" ;Jchiel'cd ma~ he ...o l·onvincin;!;. and Ihc alrerna l i,'cs 100 im plaul>ihlc.
for there (0 be little mum for doubt O\'er the ('ondmion~ re,lehed, but e\'en then 1O()~
ceT[:l inr~ is not po ....~ihle. We ;Ire lll\\a~s deal ing in likclihoods ;lIld prob:tbilitie .... !'
l{cconstrllcl ion \\ork i... so often an interdisciplinary effort::1 ~pccia! i sr in some ficld
\\"illl no parrieul;lr knOll Ir.:dge (If the Homan army can shr.:d surprising and informative.!
2 T/" Ardrorologiml Evvlf'llcl'

Figllrt 15: RD.-mlS/ructiolls of 211d- fllld3rd ctf/lury AD lIIilirnryn/llipllltf/1 (from COllissill /926).

new light on old problems from wh:1t they would regard as common se nse and everyday
practise.
Re-enact ment and display societies, prime amongst whom have been t he Ermine
Street Guard ( PI. 5c) , followed by more recent groups such as Junkclmann's 0111 II
Fiavio, or the/~ioXIIII G'nllillo, seek to convey to the geneml public some impression of
what life in the Roman army may really have been like. rib date, however, onlya few so-
ciet ies, such as cohors I' Col/on,,", have preferred t he 3rd centu ry over the 1st. Through
dil igent study of the source material, such groups reconstruct the weaponry and kit of
the Roman soldier of their chosen arm and period with an efficiency that is laudable.
However, this is not reconstruction archaeology in its strictest sense, for (ironically
enough) much of rhe equipment is tOO well-made and , understandably, not
field-tested to destruction under observarion .l6
Thus there are lim ir:nions in using the experience of such groups as 'evidence' for
the study of mil itary equ ipment. Nevertheless, the reader will find reference to the
work of these bodies wit hin the pages of th is book and t hat should speak for itself.
One of the most famou s instances of the use of reconst ruction archaeology was the
struggle of scholars to understand the workings of the segmcntal cuirass (Fig. 16).
~·I os t early attempts were firml y based on rhe images on Trajan's Column and so
doomed to failure , given the representational limitations of that monument . When von
Gro1ler published the collection of material excavated from the WiIffenlll«gazill at
36 Romal/ M i/i!{If}' Eqllipllll'lll

Figure 16: Rmmslrtlfliflg thr Codlridgf m;ra.>JI'J (from vit'fi)s). I R£Jbills{H/:,jirsr (ll/elflP'; 2 tile
jill(l/ Vfl"SiOIl.(Nottos{'(I/t»

Carnuntum, it was to the Column that he turned in order to make sense of the many
/01im p ieces recovered. T he main elements of the cu irass - girt h hoops, shou lder
srrips, and hinged fittin gs - were known, but the manner of theiTusc nor understood.
Even :IS late at 1960, it was sti ll poss ib le for scholars ro m isplace pieces of the cuirass in
a((empt ing such rcconsnucrions. The d iscovery of rhe hoard of m il ita ry equ ipment
and other objects at Corbridge in 1964 (Fig. 11 ) provided the final c lues to the form of
th is type of armour, and the involvement of Robinson, a practising armourer, led to the
now fam il iar and fully funct ional rcconscructions.
Undcrstanding that thc armour was articulated on leather scraps, rathcr than the
less-ncx ible leathcr under-jerkin prcvious ly prcfcrrcd by scholars, was an important
step in thc right d ircct ion, but even Robinson's first attempts to undcrstand the
Corbridge armour were misdirected (I'ig. 16a) , because he initially allowed h im sclfto
bc influcnced by those earlier writers. Ultimately, the archaeological evidence was thc
only viable means of understand ing thc scgmcntal cuirass ( Fig. 16b), and this was also
true of the Newstead finds . With the benefit of hindsight , it may we ll be thar involve-
ment, at the time of the Carnuntum find , of an expert on med ieval Eu ropean or
orienta l armour (Robinson's pa nicu lar spec iality) could have provided a solution much
earlier, since bo th these traditions prod uced articula ted armour.v
Some reconstruct ion archacology is, howcvcr, morc heavily depcndcnt on sources
other than the archaeological cvidcnec. The studyof ancient arti llery requires dctailed
undersnl11dingof often obscure technical trcatises, which providc formulae fo r produc-
ing weapons of varying cali bres. These texts, together wi th their often corrupt
manuscript ill ustrations ( Fig. 7). provide some means of identifying the components
of arti llery p icces, and some notable successes have been achieved . Major Erwi n
Schramm was an ea rl y pioneer of art il lery reconstruction in Germany during and after
2 The Archaeologictll Evidmct 37

{he Fi rst World War. Modern st udies have (0 combine the interprctat ion ofarchaeolog-
ical, litcra ry, and representational sou rces, a good example being t he idcntificarion of
(0 bolt-shooting engines from Lyon ( Fig. 82), Or~o\'a, and Gornea
J;tllfllKsfr;(I belonging
(Fig. 132). and, moreover, distinguishing be[\Veen a smalle r, portable fIIOllllbal/isfa and
its larger companions of a type similar (0 those depicted on Trajan's Column. z8

Notes
Il anis 1979. 9Z-9; Barker 1993. Z03-5.
Newslead pits: Curle 191 1. 104-39. Curle'sapprooch: ibid. viii.
,\ Jcsia: SicI'ers 1997.
4. Black markel: Brodie ,t,d. ZOOO; Brodie and Walker T ubb ZOOZ. Sc,,~: I-Iundell r. lango and Bennell
1994. Fig. 1.4. 1.10. 1.37. Tnledo: Vcrmculc 1960: Robinson 1975,65; Kondoleon ZOOO. Cat. No. 4Z.
GUllmann; Junkelmann2()()(}J.
5. Accidental loss: Bishop 1986. 717- 19: 19893. 5-6. Helmels in ril'ers: Rohinson 1975. 5B. following
Klu mhaeh ]96 1,98-100. Cf. KOnzll999-2000
Shipwrel'ks: Baau 19B5: Fcug~re 1998. Vesu"iu5: Gore 19B4; Onisi 2005.
llaltieficlds: Bishop 1989a, 3-4: CoulSlOn 2oo]b: 200S. Virmius: Florus 2.24. BayeUl<: Wil:;on 19M,';, PI.
7]-3. Liltle Big 110m: FOl< 1993: 1997. Kalkricsc: Schluler 1993; 1999; SchlUler and Wiegcls 1999.
TowlOn: Fioralo flol 2000. Wisby: Thordemann 1939. Krcfeld: I'irling 197 1; 1977: 1986: Reichmann
1999; Fahr Z005. HODe-burial: A. l lyland. pcrs. comm.
8. Sieges: CoUlS100 ZOOlb; ZOOS. Vclsco: Bosmao 1995b. Alesia: Redd~ 1995. DuT'''': Lcriehc 1993: James
1985; ZOO4. Z9-39: ZOOS. Gunpowder: Fox ]993; Freeman and Pollud ZOO I: l-I9cckcrand Mauck 1997.
9. Inchluthil; Taylor and \\~Ison ]961. 160; Angusflol. I%Z: Pius and 5t Jos<;ph 1985. \05-15,289-99.
I-I erodian: /list.I I!' 14.7. Newslcad: ~bnning 1972,24J--6:Clarkc:and Jones 1994. DclibcrateelcarJnce:
1IIanningI972.246.
10. Demolition: Ha nson 1978 ..102-5. Clearance: Bishop 1986, 72 1-2. Cf. Deschler-Erb Z005.
11. Corbridge: All ason-J"nes and Bishop 198B, 103. Over-representation: Coulston 198Bb. IZ-13: Bishop
1989a,2.
IZ. ReC)'eling: Bishop ]9B5b.9.Zinc: 110m 1987. Fig. 90.
13. Allasoo-Jones and Bishop 1988. 109-10.
14. Army movcmems: Schllnbc:rger 1985. 355 (Vorallx:nland ); 347-8 (f. AI) 43); 359--()5 (after All 70):
423-4 (Gennan and Raelian fronliers). D;acia: Dawson 1989,355. Towns: MacMullen 1988. Z09-17;
l-I odgKlO 1989;Dawsool99(): nishop 1991; Fischer200I.Cf. Veg.1 11,8.Rome: BroiscandScheid 1987.
130-46; Coulsmn 2000. n. 149: Consoli 2000. 52.
15. .\l3 urelania: Bou bc:- Picrol 1964: Mackenscn 1991.
16. Dimibution: Bishop 1986, 719; Maeken sen 1987,44. Dura: James ZOO4. 235-6, Fig. 139. Augsl:
Dcschler- Erb 1999, 80-98. Tempor-JI)' eamps: Bishop 19B5b. 1.3; Welfare and Swan 1995. ZI-Z.
17. lloordsofequipmcnt: Allason -Jones and Bishop 1988 (Corbridge I-[oord). Edward.~ ]992 (Ri bchcsler).
Keim and Klum baeh 195 1 (SIr-Jubing). Fisc her ]99 1 ( Kiinzin~). Irime"ul. 1997 (Alfaro).l lorval 1997
(.limiheJ). Coin hoards: Casey 1986.,';1-67.
18. Helmets: Oldenslein 1990. .16. Diachronic: Bradk,'1982: 1990,200-1.
]9. Torbrilgge 1972. T ongres:CfLX1IU592. DoroslOrum:CIJ. 111 ,1443.1. Empcl: \fan Driel-:\Iurray 1994.
Bath: Conliffe 1988. 8-9 with Fig. 4.1'1. V. IAlwson C<lllil'menl: /)igtSl49,16,J-13: Ruffus 29 and 56.
20. Doorwe rlh: Ilmuwer 1982. X:1nten: Jenkins 1985. Root}·: Bishop 1989a. 4-5. Cf. Kiinzl 1996.438-49:
\'00 Camap-Bomheim 1991; 1994: Randsburg 1995: Jurgensen (/111. 2003.
ZI. nog finds: Engelhardl 186.3: 1865; 1867: 1869: IIkjaerand L0nsnup 1982: Raid 1994
2Z. nuria1s in general: Schilobc:rgcr ]953.Came!on: Brcezetlol 1976. I\ lehrom: whler and Kuno", 198.1.
I~)'on: Wuilleumier 1950. Canterbury: Iknneu f/ ul 198Z. 185-90. Chasscnard: OCchclctte 1903.
Gualka: Bujukliev 1986: Werner 1994. Nawa: Ahdul- flak 1954-55.
23. Late burials: l'elcu1cscu 1995. Burials oUlwith empire: Nylen 1963: G/.arnceka ]99Z. Anglo-Sal<on
bllrial~: Hawkes 19]4,39.1.
38 Romtlll Mililllry Eqllipmml

24. Sword of Ti b<,;rill~: 1';l'pold 19.'\2; Klu mbach 1970; Walker 19111. f'AmtCxl: Brown 1976.37. Imprecise
bngu:lgc: Lipl)Old 19.;2.4. SciC1U ifi c ~n:lI)'5;5: Kl umb:lch 1970, lJO.
25. Coles !9n 47-8.
26. Ermine Slrec! Guard: C""stahlc 1984: Leva and Plumier 191!4: Il3 incs \9<)8. cr. j unkdmann 1986:
1989; Peterson 1992
n. HI.a 11; I(ohinson 1974: 1975. 174-S6.
l8. Schr-Jmm 1(1)0; L\brsdcn 1%9: B33'-1; 19711.
 3 The Documentary Evidence
Introduction
Wh ilst represcmational evidence can reveal much about the way in wh ich equipmcm
was worn, and perhaps even give a narrow social context, the broader hiSlOrical picture
must derive from t he written word. T he study of docume ntary sources is a quest for a
briefmenrion of somcot hcrwisc ignored item, but [his has to be all ied with qualitat ive
:lsscssmem ofl hc merit of each 'fact' gai ned in this way.

The Literary Sources

Literary evidence has 10 be rTc:m:d widl caution and it is essentia l that the social cond i-
tions unde r which texts were produced is allowed for in any consideration of what
ancie nt writers had {Q say about mil iulf), equipment. Most writ ing in Roman society
was an eli te, d ilettante past ime, with only the best pract it iom:rs be ing preserved for
poslt:rity. Artistic licence and t he generous ust;: of anach ronisms means it is usually hal'.·
ardous to treal the material tOO lite rally. I
However, the literary evidt;:nce fa ll s into two broad categories, wh ich can be defined
as direct and ind irec t description . Dirt;:ct description is normally found in techn ica l
manuals, of the son produced to descri be the subjcct of art illery (arguably one of the
pinnacles of classical tech nologica l achit;:vement ), but it can occur in less spccialized
writings whcre an author is at tempt ing to describe an aspect of the Roman army with
wh ich his audience might not be familiar. Heron wrote an important treat ise on torsion
art ille ry, and t he arch itectural writer Vi tTU\'ius included mach ines of war in hi s book
(he had been in charge of arti llery whilst servi ng wilh Octavian).!
At the same time, it is important w dist inguish between true technical works and
those produced as works of li terature, the la tter being fa r more common than the for·
me r. ~bny of the accounts of military exploits, such as Fronti nus' SiraltgnlJflfO or
Caesar's Commnl/ani, were intended primarily as literature (although in Caesar's case,
it was also a carefully contrived piece of propaganda), their main advantage being that
t hey were written by men with a distinguished m ilitary career be hind them. On the
other hand, Tacitu s was tOO involved in his own rhewrica! technique for us to use him
without extreme care. Arri:1I1 is anothe r military figu re whose writings survive, and twO
of his works, the TfChll~ 1i1krikl! and the Ekftlxiskflf'AkIllOll, both record details of military
equipme nt in use.!
The lateAth· or early·St h·century AD writer Veget ius compiled a work intended to
show his emperor how ro restore the army ro its old virt ues. Although writing at a com·
parat ively late period, Veget ius was using earl ie r sources, some of whom he names
(Caw, Celsus, Frontinus. and Paternus, along with the laws of Augustus and Hadrian),
and scholars have gone a long way towards deducing precisely which passages de ri ve
from wh ich earl ie r write r. Hi s Fp;Iofl/(J Rri Mi/iltlns preserveS :l number of important
40

references to m il it~ry equipment, borh descriptions and examples of its usc (iT is
Vegctius who tells us that centurions wore tran sverse crests on their helmets, a fact
confirmed by sculptural c\'idcncc). His work is also an undercxploitcd sou rce for the
sTudy of the legion of t he later l'rincipate and Dominate: his tlnliqllo l'ftio. which has for
so long perplexed scholars, is now begin ning to look morc like a ge nuine 3rd-ccmury
legion than a confused blending of its Republican and carly Imperial predecessors-
witness the di scovery of light-armed klllriarii and legionary SIIg/ll(lrii amongst the ep i-
taphs from Ap~lmea (sec Chapter 7).~
Lega l works such as rhe Digfsl and Codex Thror/oSitlllll.f can occasionally be of help. For
instance, il is recorded in the Digt'sl , cit ing the jurist Paulus, that a soldier who sold his
weapons was pun ished accord ing [Q what he had sold. The Ugt's .lIi/imrt's of Kuffus are
particularly e nlightening on mi litary laws concerning the ownership ::and disposal of
arms, such as the fact that a soldier who threw away his \\'eapons on the battlefield was
pun ished both for disarming himselfbut also for arming the enemy. Li kewise, a soldier
who stole the equ ipment ofa comrade was reduced in f:.mk (also noted in the Digl's/) .
The Nolilia Dif,[lIi{(flllm implies 'J great deal about the production of equipment in large
speci::alizcd workshops (jtlbrimt' ) placed at strategic points around the F.mpire. ~
T he st ud yof Kepublican military equ ipment is heavily d ependen t upon the Ilis/orill
of Polybios. I I'Jving served ::as a Greek caval ry commander and been de nounced to the
Komans after the d efeat of Perseus in 168 IK:. he joined the household of Scipio
Aemiliallus and followed him on campaign in Spain and North Africa. He was thus in a
unique posit ion 10 observe the Homan army in operation and wrote all account of wha!
he had seen for a large ly Grcek audience, an aspect of his work that is val uahle because
he takes trouble 10 explain details [h:][ would be familiar to a Roman readersh ip.6
A similar set of circ u mstances mean that the Jcwish wri ter Josephus (joseph ben
]'I'13tthi;ls) is important to the stud yof the Koman army ofthc early Principatc. Init ial ly
fightin g against thc Romans in the Jewish revolt of AD 66-70, he surrendered to them
after the siege of Jotapara (where he had been commander) and became a rapid con-
vert to the Fi:.IVian cause, Writing first in Ammaic and then Gree k, he produced
accountS of the Jewish War and recent Jewish histOry which also benefit (in our eyes)
from his being an ou tsider d cscribing Roman arms for non-Roman readers. 1
Indirect description is gle:med from writers who may recount a f:lct in t he course of
[heir narrative which , by virtue of its being unusual, merited their attention. A famou s
instance of this is Caesar's descri ption of how, on one occasion when fighting rhe
Nervii, hi s troops did not have time to take off their shield cO'l'ers or affix their ifHigTlill
before going into banle (implic:H ion: soldiers normally took off their sh ield covers and
put on ;'fS/Wf;{/). Caesar did not generally describe the equ ipment of his army 3nd it is
unusual sitult ions which prompt these little asid es. /\nother occurs when he recorded
how the pil" of his legionaries pierced several enemy shields at once. pinning them to-
gether (implication: pi/II did not normally fix sh ields toge ther in this manner). These
sn ippets occur in most of the historians (such as l 'acitus. the //islorial/lIglls/(I, Cassius
Dio, Ammianus rvlarcellinus, and Zosimus) and arc all the more valuable when they
come in the form of incidcnral asides. ~
An cxample of the problems posed by Roman historians is a phr::ase used by Tacitus
in describi ng the bau le between the Romans ::and Car::ataeus' su pporters. lIe says that
3 Th~ DorolllmlorJ Evidmrt: 41

the Bri wns were trapped bemeen thcg/od;; and pikl of the legionari es, and the spa/hae
and hasftJe of the auxiliaries. Rather than argu ing that all auxil iaries used the long
sword, we must realise that 'Ja citus was aiming at a rhe torical effect he re, at the ex~
pense of accuracy (th is shows the danger of dogmat ic argumen ts based on one picce of
unverifiable text). Similarly, Plutarch appears to have been con fused o\'e r thc signifi-
cance of developments in pi/ulII design, fabricating a tale of what was evidently a
myth ical woode n ri vet and associating it personally wi th ~\'lar iu s , a typical instance of
anc ie nt historians' fondnes s for ascribing aspects of technological development to
prominent historical figures. Bearing this in mind , how should the statemem of the
His/oril/ AugllSla that H adrian im proved the mil itary equ ipmem of the Rh ine Ilrmies be
assessed? Could one man actually inst itut e anything more than a limi ted , local change
to equ ipmcnt, or is this in fact litemry shortha nd to itlustr.ne Hadrian taking an inter-
est in his army, confirming the image of him as a fellow-so ldier (rommi/i/o)? We do not
know and can only gucs s.~

The Sub· Literary Sources (Fig. 17)

Literacy was a skill which cou ld aid a soldier's promotion through clerical e mploymc nt ,
and the Roman army not only fun c tioned with a high degree of bureaucmtic paperwork
and an active commemorat ive e pigraphy, but was also a major agem spreading language
and literacy through the provinces.1U
Personal le tte rs and official documents some times survive from the ancie nt world,
wriHen on papyri (normally only surviving in dry eastern pro\'inces) or wooden tablets
(surviving in wet, anaerobic condi tions in the West). Amongst personal letters arc
those of the so-called TiberianusArchive, where Claudi us Te rent ianus, a recru it in the
navy in the early 2nd century, with aspirations tojoin a legion , wrOte:

' I ask :md beg you, father, for I have no one dear to me except you, ufte r the
gods, to send ro me by Vale rius a battle sword (g/lIrliIlSPUgnO/01iIlS), a I ... J, a
pickaxe (rlolobro), a grappli ng iron (COp/II), tWO of rhe beSt spears (/of/rhal')
obtainable, a I... J cloak (!Jyrrllsc/lSlo/inus), and a girdled tu nic, toget her with
my trousers .. .'11

His father, Tiberianus, was evide ntly srill serving with a legion at the time of writing
this. All did not go quite according to plan, however, for Terent ianus subsequently
wrote to hi s father

' I beg you, father, if it meets with your approval, to send me rrom there boots
(ra/igtle) of soft leather and a pa ir of socks (1Ir10Nl~S). Ctlligtll' f/udm/tle are
worth less ; I provide myself wit h footwear twice a month. And 1 beg you to
send me a pickaxe. 'fh e oplio took from me rhe one rhat you se nt me, but I
am grateful to him for furni shing me .. .'I!
42 Ro""," ,I/ili/ory Equiplfll'1l/

Figlm 17: Papyrus p, 11«li" ;,ro, 6765

rlf'l(lilillgprodllf'liOfl ill 0 Itgiol1(1ry fahrica

Similar requests for items to be sent to soldiers arc known from the Vindolanda
writing tablets and provide an added dimension to the \\ hole issue of the procurement
of equipment by soldier:; (sec belo\\, Chapter 9). At the end of the 3rd century ,\]),
Paniskos wrote to his \\ ife asking her to send his helmet, shield, fi\e spears, breast-
plate, belt, and tent fittings to him. LI
The Roman army seems to have generated documentation in prodigious amounts,
although only a tiny proportion of this survives in favourable conditions. An important
document of the 2nd or 3rd century All from Egypt prcseT\es a record of t\\'o days' pro-
duction in a !egionuy workshop (Fig, 17)' sho\\ ing what it was producing (s\\ord~,
shields, bows, and parts for artillery) and the staff working there (legionaries, au:.;ilia-
ries, civilians, and soldier:;' :;Javes). Anorher text from Egypt and dating to the reign of
Antoninus Pius, records a mother reeei\'ing the property of her deceased son, a soldier
of ronors II Tltrul7JlII, including sums 'inorlllis' of 21 tll'1Iorii 27IJz obols (presumably pay-
ment for handing in his weapons), along with 'popilio' 20dl'1llirii (possibly his share of a
tent). The ink-on-wood tablets found at Vindolanda include a number of pertinem
references, not least those to the fort workshops or the Ilritish use ofweaponl)~ "hibt
some from Carlisle include a report containing a list of mis:;ing ca,'alry equipment.'~
3 The Documenrnry Euidenre 43

E pigrap hy (Figs.lS-20)
The evide nce of insc riptions (on Stonc and othe r media) is only rarely of direct usc in
the st udy of military equ ipment. The Romans' love of the 'epigraphic habit ' as it has
been ca lled means th at a vast amount of information has come down to us fi rst-hand, al-
t hough it is usually abbreviated (assum ing some prior knowledge on the parr of the
reader) and frequent ly abrupt in tone and neglectfu l of de rail. There are a handful t hat
refer to the production of equ ipment (sec below, Chapte r 9), as well as unusual pieces,
such as dedicatory plaques. IS
Official monumen tal inscriptions can occasionally be of help, but more often t hat
not, are equivocal sources. Such is t he case wi th anl/fill/nllana or balin/ana inscri ptions;
for although these texts. e reclCd to com me morate t he consHuct ion (or reconstruc-
tion) of these st ruct ures. confi rm the ir existe nce, they do not te ll us what armamenlnritl
or btJIlisfarit, might have been. Th us, t hey are of little direct assistance in mil itary
equi pment stud ics. '6
Caree r inscriptions of middle-ran ki ng mi litary offi cials provide some ins ight s, such
as t hose me nt ioning the supervision of arms manufacture in the te rritory of t he Aedui
or t he comm ission ing of equ ipment from the city of Milan.'1
Fu nerary inscript ions provide a context fo r depictional evidence, as with the series
of tombstones from t he 1st and 4th centu ries AD discussed elsewhere (Chapter I).
Not on ly can they su pply informat ion about the name and unit of t he deceased, they
often provide val uable dat ing c\'idence, either by referring to events which can be
placed historically (such as the existence of a particu lar garrison at a particular period)
or by stylist ic indi cators (the usc of certain formula e in the tex t of the inscription, or
even the style of lette ring emp loyed by the mason).
A good illustration of t his is t he tombstone of P: Flavoleius Cordu s fro m Mai nz. The
inscription informs t he reader that he was a miles in t he ItWo XlIII Cf'mintl; we know t hat
this unit was based at "'\aim; (toget her with I~o XVI G'a//ictJ) from c. 13 Be to AD 43,
when it left to lake part in the invasion of Britain. T he legion retu rned c. AD 70, moving
on to Pannonia some time afte r AD 89. It is generally accepted t hat bgio X/III Gm,inn
earned t he honorific tit les A/mluJ Jljcl1ixfo r its part in supprcssing the revolt ofBoud ica
wh ilst servi ng in Britain, so this would appear to suggest t hat Flavolei us' stone belongs
during the unit's first sojourn in Mainz. 18
Dedicatory inscri ptions are anothe r class of epigraphic evidence t hat merits consid-
e ration. An important example is the plaque recording the gift of a SCII/llm and lanctll to
Vi hansa by a centurion of kgio III Cyrenaica ( Fig. 1 2 ). '~
Pu nched or scratched ownership inscript ions on equ ipment were used in the same
way t hat na me-tags arc employed on modern cloth ing. Usually punched into meral
(}-i g. 18,3--4; 6-8) with an augur (a technique known as plIllc/im), although t hey cou ld
sometimes be scratched into t he su rface using a sharp objcct (Fig. 18, 1), t hey were
simple enough fo r the ord inary soldie r to be able to execute in a matter of minu tes.
The study of these inscri pt ions, particul arly those on helmc ts. can help in dati ng
pieces, particularly when reference is made to a speci fi c uni t. Such owne rship inscrip-
tions c haracterist ically only mention the name of the owne r and his cemurion (or
dccu rion, if in t he cavalry), occasionally add ing the unit to whi ch he belonged.
44 Rnman ,l filt/(lI) EqllijJm"",

i>ftf'-f~!{~(
o kY£;~~~'J~l~_t<~",

~~~~ ______~======______~2~m
Figurr 18: Inscriptions 01/ military rqllip!1lt'1ll. I GOlf/flr/ingl'n; 2 O/Jenllllml'lgau; 3 Nt'Uss;
4 RJll'illgollheim; 5 Rhine {II Main::.: 6 Huggmlllfl; 7 Rhine al Maim,,; 8 NU/fen.
3 T/tf! Documm((J1J Ev;dl'flrtl 45

Figu,-, 19: Embossd SG-'"Ord smblwrr/

c;t" llJOllliftlrlllrUS (?) 110111,. ;nsrribd
oll;((Vifltloll;MiI).

Neverthe less, the form of the name can often be of sorm: help, as cogtlOlII;no seems to
h:m: bee n rare amongst soldiers before the time of Claudi us. Absence of a COgtI01II~1I
helped Oldenstein to assign an early Imperial date to the hdmcts from Eich. zO
Some helmets had multiple ownership in scriptions, suggesting long service. and
confirming the practice of recycl ing equ ipment once the owner had finished with it . A
Coolus type helmet from Koln had an interesting variety of inscriptions which showed
that it had belonged to several men, one of whom at least (Fig. 18,6) was in l'f,io XVI
(moved from Mainz to Neuss in 1\043 and disbanded in AD 70). Interestingly. none of
t hese inscriptions seem to offer any confirmation for the not ion that legionary equ ip-
ment was handed on to auxiliary troops.~1
The hdmet from Deurne not only carri ed an inscription recording the unit to which
it had be longed, the COm;({lffllJis S(ab/{!si(lfIa vi, but also a name, M. Titus Lunam is (pos-
sibly tht: manufact urer or owner of rhe piece) , and its we ight of I pound l ift ounces
(368.4g, which compared favourably with its weight of .,59.9g upon di scovery).u
Apan from armou r an d personal (and sometimes even uni t) possessions, we also
find weapons being marked in this way. Slingshot were cast wit h legionary attributions
during the Republican period. as well as political slogans or insults. The marking of
equi pment is of special sign ificance when deal ing wi th spearhead types, a notoriously
diffi cu lt area of st udy. Debate as to what constitu tes t he best cavalry or infantry spear
is to some extenr tempered by inscriptions on some spearheads which indicate that
the owner belonged to a I/lrma, and was rhus a cavalryman in either an 010 or a conors
I'ff llifattl. Spearheads from Newstead and Gomad ingen (Fi g. 18, 1) bear names with a
46 Rnm(lN .I1i/i/ory Equiplllrnt

~===-~ ______ ~
1~

Fi/[/la 20: hlSt'fiprions on 11'lI1!tn" slti,'" rOVl'rS. / 1';ndoniSSlI; 2 BOImn"/krg; 3 VillriofliJSlJ.

lunlJ/I mentioned, \~hilst a piece from London, ,cry similar to that from Newstcad, has
centuria! inscription: > • VER • VICT (possibl} 'ViclOr's, in the cemury of Vcr us'). Of
:l.
course, one could either argue that this represents the spearhead of a legionary cavalry-
man, carried on century strength, or that auxiliary infanTrY and cavalry used similar
forms of spearhead! !-1
Beyond 0\\ ncrship inscriptions. however, we occasionally find teXIS b) rhe manufac-
turers of rhe equipmem. These 3rc '-cry imponam, for they are often used in
discussions about the dcgrt:c of private production of equipment. At rhe ~implcst
Ic\'cl, items might be stamped, as II ieh the Pompeii-type sword bl:ldc from the Rhine
with the word St\BIi'/\'S ('of Sabinus') on the t:lIlg and SVIL.\ on the blade, or, more
commonly, the manufacturers' stamps on /Xllrmr (in one case counterstruck Ilith a
unit's identifier). More elaborate examples of manufacturer inscriptions can be found
on swords and daggers. A Mainl.-typc sword scabbard from Vindonissa includes the
phrase C. COELIVS VEI\'VST LVGVD - C(llillSj CodiNs l'i'llIlSI(lISj Llfglfrl(IIfW) ((('('il) - within
its design (Fig. 19), Ilhiist one from Strasbourg has Q NOl\ IEl\'VS I'VDES AD Alt-\ F-
Q(UiN/IIS) A'onil71llJ Pudti At! Am(III)j(ffif). Likell ise, the dagger found together II ith its
sheath at Oberammergau (Plate 1) has C A..vroi'\I\'S F - C(llius) AIIIOIlillsj(NiI) (Fig.
18,2). The Rhcingonheim sword records the weight of its sill'cr coating in a punched
inscription beneath the handguard (I'ig. 18,4), but apart from these few cases, such in-
scriptions are extremely rare. N
Hnally, pieces of equipment were sometimes :adorned with inscriptions th:u actu-
ally incorporated the name of the unit as part of its decomtion. A dagger sc:abbard
found in the Rhine at ~la i nz, prominently displayed the name of ItXio XXII Prillligeflio
(Fig. 18,5). Some leather sh ield covers, such as rhose from Vindonissa, have applique
p:lncls with the legion's name picked out in openwork (Fig. 20).H
3 Thl! Documenlliry Evitinl(:1! 47

Notes
Ogilvie 1980, 11 -17.
l lcron: r.. larsden 1971, 206-.\3. Vi(fll\"ius: ibid., 18S- 205. Viul.lvil.ls os flrrllilfYllI£: ibid.,.3-4.
Military manuals: Campbell 1987; Syviinnc 200-1, 12-26. Caesar: Welch and Powell 1998. Arri~n:
Kiech le 196.5;Sladlcr 1980.
4. Vegetius: Milner 1993; 6nnerfors 1995. Sources: Schenk 1930. T ransverse crests: 11 ,13. Alllilflll'0:W:
c.g. I'arker 1932; Sander 1939; cf Ih:ltZ 2000. Apamea: Bait y 1987: 1988; Iblt y and van Rengen 1993:
Casey 1991. 11- 12; Speidel 1992, 14-12; T omlin 2000, 167-8.
5. NOli/in: Sc:eck 1962; Ja mc~ 19S5, 257-9.
6. WalbankI97Z;Champion2004.
7. Hajak2002.
8. Nen'ii:CaesarBGII,21.PiIn:ilNl.I,25.
9. Tac. AIIII. X!U5. Wooden rivct and Marius; COImolly 2001-2. 2. C6mmilito: Camllhcll l 984. 32-59.
10. J larris 1989 253-5: Bo"'man 1991; Woolf 1998, 77- IOS.
11. Tcrelllianus' demands; Youtie and Winter 19.51, No.467.
12. Further demands: ibid. No.46!!.
13. Vin dolanda: Bowman anll Thomas 1983, No.J8. I'aniskns: \\r,lIIcr 1936, Nos.214-2 1
14. Wnrkshop papyrus: Bruckner anll Mariehal 1979, No.409. Deceascd son: Gill iam 1967. Vindolanlla'
Buwmanand T homas 1983; 1987. Carlisle: T omlin 1998.
15. Epigraphic habit: MacMullen 1982. Epigraphy in general: Sandys 1927: Keppie 1991a.
16. fJnlfiyorio: Campbell 1984; 1989; Donaldson 1990.
17. Acdui: C/LXII I,2828. Milan: CII. X III ,6763.
18. I:-: "p.5835.
19. CII.X III ,3592.
20. In scri ptions: Mac" lullen 1960,3.3-40. Eich: Oldcnstein 1990, 3~.
21. K"lnhelmet: Kl umbach 1974,23.
22. Dcurne helmet inscriptions: Klumbach 1973,60-1. Auxiliary use: Robinson 1975,82.
23. Slingshot: Keppie 1984, 12.).-5, Fig. 36. Ncwsleall: Curle 1911, 188, PI. XXXVI':;. Gomading.::n:
I leiligmann 1990. Fig. 26,1. I.ondon: Web~ler 1958, No.1S7, I'1.X I.D.
24. Pompeii-type ~word : CII. XIII,I0028,9.I''''era: RIR 241.i,.w. Vindonissa: Etllingera nll Hartm ann 1984
StrJsbourg .cabbard: CII. Xl 11.1 0027, 197. Obc ramme rgau: When 1971. It heingonheim: Ulbefl 1969a.
1'1.32.2-3.
25. I-. lainz:AuIlV4. 1'1.11,3. VinlionissJshield co\"ers: Gansscr-Burckhnrdt 1942, 73--88.
 4 The Republican Period
Compared to I:Hcr pe riods, our kno wledge of Re publican mi li tary equipment has for a
long time been sadly de ficient. Lacking detailed ;ITchacological c\'idcnce, depende nt
upon literary ;I(;counts of dubious merit, and occas ional pieces of represe ntational evi-
dence. it is only compa rJ li vcly recently that significant fi nds of artefacts from secure
archaeological contexts have begun to appear. Even so, it is not until the Punic Wars
that we begi n to find artefacts not de pos ited in funerary contexts,l
The number of sites producing l{cpublican materia l is small in com parison with
la le r periods, but increasing exponent ially. We have long depended upon find s from
the bases arou nd the town of N umarll ia. The CHOlPS at '·knicblas (on the hi ll of La
Gran Ata laya) range in date from 19510 75 BC, with camp iii bc ing idenlified with thai
of the consul I-u lviu s Nobilior, dat ing to 1531\C. The sire ofCasrillejo was used in 137
BC by Caius Host ilius ivlancinus and the n again by ScipioAemilianu s in 134-133 . The
cam p at Pe im Redonda :llso dates 10 Aemilianus' siege of N umantia. The hoard of
weaponry from Sm ihel probably dates 10 the middle of the 2nd CCnlury BC, while an as-
sault by the army of C \iu s Sext ius on the Gallic stronghold of Entremont in 124- 12J
IK: e\'idenlly led to the deposition of Roman e quipment. including pi/" and o(J//isla
bolts. T he Sertorian wars (82-72 IK:) were responsible for one major excavated site, al
Cace res eI Viejo, thought to be the UISfrtl C/mi/ill constructed by Caecilius l\'letell us.
The scries of sieges mounted on Italian towns by Cornelius Sulla is wdl attested by
find s of projectiles and damage to walls. notably at Pom peii, whilst Grad in Sloven ia
has produced a range of projectiles from an unknown siege of the 40s IK:.!
~vl ost of these sites we re excav-.Jted at the begi nning of the 20th century, but more
recent work in the Iberi:1t1 pen insuki and elsewhere has provided not on ly a wealth of
artefacts, but often al so the badly-nee ded con textual informat ion lack ing from earl ier
excavations. The oldest dated Rom:m pi/" (Iatc 3rd centu ry Be) so far known have
come from work at Castellru f, whilst excavations at Caminreal ha\'e reve:lled a range of
!atc-2nd-cent ury Be weaponry. inclu ding a ca tapu lt fram e. Since the first ccrtai n find
of a Repuhl ic:m sword of the g/(Jdill., Ifisptminw:, type at Ddos, more have come to light
or been recognised amongst existing collect ions. J
Finally. the di scovery of large amounts of Roman material from the Roman
eireumvallat ion at Alesia provides us wit h artefacts from the middle of the 1st century
BC. Stoffd's r.:xcavations for Napoleon I II produced a considr.:m blc quantity of e quip-
ment from the d itches just below ivlon t Rea and these haw now been supplcme ntr.:d
(and placr.:d in context) by modern work. at the same t ime as t he original material has
been re-assessed. Som e of the artefacts have bcr.: n used to argue for a Gllili c origin for
ite ms like the dagger, hu t therr.: seems lin k doubt that this is Roman , not Gallic.
equipment. Finds from Puy d' lssolud (probably Uxellodu nu m) and a collect ion of ma-
te rial from Osu na may also be Roman and belong to about the same tim e.~
If our image of the r.:arly Imperial Homan soldi e r is shaped by lhjan's Column. thr.:n
t he AltarofDomitiu s Ahcnobarbu s (Fig. 2 1) -with just four infantryme n, one cavalry-
man. and an offi cer - :lIld the Aem ili us P-.wllus monument (Fig. I) provide our
4 7'ltf'Rt-pllil/iaIll Penot/ 49

Figure 21: 'A/lflr of Domilills AltenobnrbllS'. 1-2• .')-6 Ugionllnes; 3 mV(I/rymfm; 4 offirer
(tribunus ?). (Nollo sCflle).
so ROff/aflMilital)'Eqllipff/Ol!

Figurr 22: Tombs/one of legio Martia

mil/ilioN Mifll((ills (Padm'll). (Nor /0 sm/r)

Republican soldier. There are so few iconograph ic reference points for this pe riod, that
it is hardly surprising that the soldiers depicted un these should prove so enduring in
subsequent reconstructions of Republican soldiers. There are only a handful of repre-
sentational tombstones; only one of these, depicting a centurion (Fig. 22) , is really
informative. Given rhe paucity of evidence for this period, it is all tOO easy to general-
ize from the particular, but the temptat ion to over-simplify the equipment of thc
Republic is best kept at bay by reference to the immensely complicated picture ar-
chaeology has given us of a comparatively short period in the ea rly Principate (sec
Chapter 5) .5

Weapons

Pi/a (Fig. 23)

It is often sa id of the pillllfl that it was designed to bend upon impacr, thus rendc ri ng it
incapable of instant re-use, but this is only one side of the story. This was not a func+
tion of the pi/11m, merely a useful consequence of its design. T he pi/11m existed as a
4 Tlte R£pllbliam Period

.-- -

•
0 -
o "

~ ____~=======-____~~m

Figure 23: R£publimn pila. Ttmged: I, 3-4 Numan/in; 2 Glieere;; II SlIlilte/" 12 Kroni; 13
Enfmflon,. Socketed: 5 Numanfio; 9 Monfe/orfino. Socimd iflCf"diory: 6 Smilie/. Spife-fonged:
7-8AIe.sia.

close-range javeli n that used weight, as opposed [0 velocity, [0 provide its peneH:l.livc
power. Moreover, carefu l conside ration of the most common form suggests that it was
designed as an armour-piercing missile, a fact witnessed by the pyramidal bodkin-head
(a featu re that medieval armour-piercing missiles, such as the crossbow quarre l and
the Engl ish longbow arrow. were to exploit) . As such. its prime function was firstly to
.12 ROllltlfl Mi/i/(lry Ffjlliplflfll!

pierce an enemy sh ield and then, carried by its own impetus (and with the narrow
shank com inuing unobstructed behind the larger head), assail the body of the enemy.
Thu s the long iron shank did not exist juS[ to bend , but ro provide the reach for the
weapon between punching a hole in the sh ield and striking the bearer. Modern experi-
mems wit h reconstruction weapons h3ve shown the bodkin head capable of piercing
.30 mm of pine wood, or 20 mm of ply, when thro wn from a distance of 5 m, and that a
barbed head was far less cffcctivc.b
Nevenheless, it was characteristic of the pi/lim Thai the shank could suffer panial
failure upon impact, disabling the weapon . It has been suggested that this was
achieved in a variety of ways, for example using a wooden rivet to attach the shank to
the shaft, or not tempering the iron of the shank below the head . r-,'\ore likely it was
simply a result of the form of the weapon and rhe whole notion of a wooden rivet has
been dismissed as a misunderstanding on the part of Plutarch or his sou rce. Again,
modern experiments in throwingpi/a have succeeded in reproducing the sort of bend -
ing seen on the shanks of excavated examples. 7
Since it has always been readily identified with the Hom an legionary soldier, the
pi/lim has attracted a cons iderable amount of scholarly attention, largely focusing upon
the problem of its origin. Arguments in favour of a Samnire, Spanish, or Etruscan origin
have been advanced, but no sat isfactory conclusion has been reached . There certainly
seem to be representations of it on 4th century BC frescoes from the Giglioli tomb at
Tarquinia, whilst a socketed example in the Vatican is claim ed to have come from a
5th-centllry BC tomb at Vulei in Erruria. However, the fact that two ve rsions of the
weapon existed, the heavy and the light, may be ind icative of separate traditions that
finally converged in Homan armament.~
The classic description of the Repub[ican pi/If'" comes down to us in Polybios' writ-
ings, providing the interesting detail that pi/ifill heads were apparently barbed and
solidly constructed. lleavy and light types :lfe recognisable amongst specimens surviv-
ing in the archaeological record . The heavy pi/um tended to be tanged, whilst its lighter
q
cousin was socketed, but socketed heavy pi/a are also known from this period.
AClua[ examples of the weapon are now known from a number of sites, the earliest
possibly being those recorded from Castellruf in Spain and Talamonaccio in Italy
(thought to date to the last quarter of the 3rd cenruryBC), but the best known remain
those from the Homan camps around Numantia. There are likewise examples from
Caceres el Viejo, Caminrea l, and bothA[esia and Entremont. j\,lost of the published ex-
amp[es have pyramidal heads and circular-sectioned shanks, although examples with
barbed heads are known from ·Ib.lamonaccio, Ephyra,A[esia, and possibly Renieblas.lO
The early heavy pi/(I have barbed heads (recalling Polybios' description) and fig-
ure-of-eight-shaped tangs. However, the finds from Talamonaccio, Castellruf, and
Ephyra show that once the tang was fitted into the rectangular wooden block above
the shaft and secured by one or twO rivets, it s excess lobes were bent over at e ither side
to provide additional security for the metal component of the weapon. 11
Complete examples of the heavy pi/11m wit h pyramidal heads come from Reni eblas,
Valencia, and Caminreal. With a head 60 mm long, a shank 554 mm, and a tang 90 mm
long and 55 mm broad, the best -preserved example from Hcn ieblas was fastened to its
shaft by means of two rivets through the lang, 35 mm apart. Other shanks of simila r
4 The &pub/ia/fl Period 53

lengt h also survived, at least one of which had a socket, but there were seve ral ot her ex-
amples with the flat tang with rivet holes, and all probably had circu lar-sect ioned
shanks. A tanged weapon from Pena Rcdonda is rectangular in sect ion at t he tang,
square in the lower part of the shank, and circu lar towards the head, which appears to
have had a flat head. Intriguingly, it has been suggested t hat some headless sharpened
pi/a may have been imended to be used that way (perhaps a field adaptation of dam-
aged weapons). ll
The lighter pi/um was usually sockeTed; in Spain, complcte examples arc known
from Renieblas, CasT illejo, Osuna, and Cam inreal. The lengt h of t he head of t he
weapon from Re nieblas measu red 20 mm to its broadest point, whence it was 232 mm
to t he sockeT base, which was 20 mm in diameter. The head of the example from
Castillejo was 22 mm long, and the shank 250 mm to the base of t he socket (again 20
mm in diameter).13
A number of pi/a were found by Stoffel aT Alesia in t he circumval lat ion ditches be-
low Mom Rea. Some were large but most were fairly small by comparison with t he
largest of the Spanish pieces, presumably belonging to t he lighter variety of t he
weapon. H
Some socketed pi/a from Smi hel were elearly designed fo r usc as incen di ary mis-
siles, akin ro later arrow- and boltheads. Apparently headless, t hese weapons
incorporaTed a small container within thc shan k, designed to contain t he burning ma-
te rial. Given their obviously short range, They may have been designed fo r usc agai nst
siege engines. Another un usual form has a singlc-barbed head which. although from
Augustan sites, may be Republican in origin.l.>

Spears (Fig. 24)

The spear was pri marily a weapon for close-order fi ghti ng. Unl ike t he pi/um, it was nor
designed to be thrown in a shattering vollcy beforc combat was joined, although it
could be used this way), but instead gave a distinct advantagc whcn fighting agai nst
sword-wielding foes. Its unwieldi ness was a disadvantage, however, and most Roman
spear-armed HOOpS probably also had a sword or dagger. T he rear rank of the pre-Mar-
ian legion, formed from veteran troops known as triorii, were equ ipped with spears and
norpila. 16
The three chief elements of the spear wcre t he wooden shaft (sec Chapter 9), the
iron head and burt. T he head came in a variety of shapes and sizes and its funct ion is
self-evident, but the burt would nor only have providcd a secondary weapon in the
event of the head breaking off, but also protected t he shaft when it was stuck into the
ground . Whil st the range of spearhead forms and sizes fou nd in th is and later periods
might appear to indicate a range of types of weapon for different circumstances, the
preferences of ind ividual craftsmcn must also have played a part in determi ning t he fi-
nal fo rm. 17
T he spearheads of the period are unremarkable and it is impossible to distinguish
Roman fro m allied or enemy weapons. Many forms rcgularly occur in later periods,
such as the curious t riangu lar-sectioned st iletto blades, t he fu nction of which is un-
clear (although some sort of armour-piercing purpose sim ilar to that of pi/um- or
54 Roman JIli/iM/)' Eqlliplllntf

-
.~.
.
~ .-
,-
- .~ -. -
,I '

0 -, -
0
V 0
0

,
0
0 0 () 0 0 0 0

l
ll Tf. l l
(

-
"
" "
"
~ ____-=======______~x.m
Figur, 24: RJopubliam sp",rs. /- 7 spmr/u'lf(/s (1-2, 6-7 NllmfllllUI: 3, S COr~r's; 4 ClltllimY(JI):
8-14 buffS (8, 10, 12 Ctim1'S; 9. 1~ 14 NIIlIf(f!llitl; 1/ Ctlll/illrl'll!).

cat;\pult bolt-heads seems likely here). The conical shape of Ikpublican spear burrs
was, as later, dictated by case of manufacturc. lH
Polybios stared that the older Roman cavalry spear was roo slender and pliant, frc-
quent!y break ing through nothing more than the motion of tht: horse, :md lacked a
sp ikeon the butr. In conmlSI. tht: adopted Greek spear wassturd icumd it s burr could
bl! used as an effective secondary po i nt. '~

S.,ords (Fig, 25)

The origin of {he g/at/ius lIisptlllil'1lsis, as it has come (Q be know n (the tcrmgllldius could
reft:r {O any sword). is orten thought or as quire straightrorward: tht: Romans. encoun-
tering the weapon in Spain ror tht: firsr rime, were so impressed that they adopted if.
Indeed, the Slit/a stated that it was the form. not the clatxlf:ne mt:thod of manufac-
4 Tit, Rtplllllimn Period 55

-
~-----======-----~~
Figut7 25: Ri-pllblicon SLYJrds. J Alfaro; 2, 4 Smiltel; 3 !klos; 5 Ciubiasco.
 ROllI/III Militflry Eqllip"'''"'

t ure, t hat the Romans copied (sec Chapter 10). Allied to the blade shape, however, is
an implied style of eomb:lt , for this is a short sword for close·order fighting, not slash·
ing in the manner of the Celt ic longsword. Adoption of this sword, even without its
elaborate manufacturing processes, marked the deve lop me nt of new tactics . We Illay,
the refore, presume that it is this Spanish -d erived weapon that is worn by rhe Padova
cellrurion.!O
Several examples of the Republican gl(Jriills lIi~fXlfli('1/sis arc now known. ' rhe first to
be rccognised was found in excavations on rhe island of Delos, and was associated with
destruction by pirates in 69OC. Measuring 760 mm in lengt h (i ncl ud ing the tang) and
around 57 mm wide, the sword was st ill in its scabbard with suspension rings and tWO
buckles. Remains of:1 charred woode n pommel, held in place by seven rivets, wcre slill
e\'idenf. T he pommels of swords, apparen tly similarly adorned with rivets, are shown
on some Republican office rs' rombs[Qnes.!l
Other examples are now known from certain Europe'Hl sites, but among the earl iest
arc probably those from Smi hel (wit h a suggested datc of around 175 Be) . Betwee n
622 and 661 mOl in length. the blades (which range from 40 to 45 mOl at theiT broad-
est) have rounded shoulders and long tapering points. One of the Smi hel swords has a
slightly waisted blade, and this feature can also be seen on weapons from Giubiasco
(one of wh ich had a blade of 690 mm in length), as well as examples from Vrh nika,
Cam inreal , and Alesia, along with ot he r characte ristics like long tapering points and
sloping shoulde rs. One of the longes t swords, with a blade lengt h of 760 mm, was
found in a [Qmb in Je richo toge ther with parts of its iron-fromed scabbard in a context
that suggested it was a 2nd-century I1C Roman-influenced I lclleniS[ic weapon. u
Pinds of Cel tic long swords in apparently Roman contexts on Spanish sites sugges t
the usc of this we3pon by some clements of the Roman forces . Simila rly, examples of
the Spanish single-edgedf(llm/{l, a more common, nati ve 'Span ish swo rd ', have eome
from Ckcn:s el Viejo and Cam inreal Y
Mueh has bee n made. both in ancient and mode rn literature, of the stabbing action
necessary to usc t he Roman short sword successfully, aiming for the stomach or face
and coming in under t he guard or an enemy brandish ing3 longer sword overarm. How·
ever, l\:llybios pointcd out that the 'Spanish sword' was equally good for chopping as it
was for stabbing, and we ought nOt to allow the fe rvour of later write rs fo r the stabbing
action to mislead us into seeing the sword as unifunct ional. N

Daggers (Fig. 26)

T he dagger as a si de3rm for the Homan soldier secms, once 3gain, to have had Sp3nish
3llCesrry. It was not mentioned by Polybios, but exampl es from Caceres cl Viejo,
Castillcjo, 3nd Cam inrcal have close parallels amongst nat ive wcapons from the penin-
sula. The waisted blade ( I.., 150-200 mm) h3d a midrib and a long t ip. The handle had
a bu lbous. almost circu lar. te rmi nal and a central swe lli ng on an otherwise sHaighr
(square-sectioned) handgrip. The hand of the user was protceted by a sHaight
handguard riveted through the tOp of the blade. Precise ly rhi s fo rm of dagge r is dc-
pictcd on coins commemoT<lting the assassination of Caesar in 44 Be ( I-l g. 9,2 ). It is
quite conceivable thar the dagger was not in widespread usc by Homan trOOpS before
4 The Republican Period 57

jl(

Fib'1lre 26: Repllbliam daggers. I, 4, 6 Nlllflanrio; 2-3 Cticeres; 5 Obert/den; 7 J"itelberg.

the 1st cenrury AC, given that Polybios ignored it , but it was favoured by their allies
(hence its presence on Roman sites). By the time of the destruct ion of the l!'gio Mania
in 42 Be, the Padova centurion was wearing it (Fig. 22) . Indeed, the Padova relief fur-
ther reveals thut the dagger could be worn horizonrally, directly below the waist belr,
over the belly. Iberian daggers had frame scabbards, and an example from Ciruelos is
closely matched by a 1st-century AD sheath from the legionary base at Exetcr, perhaps
a surviva l from the Republican period. A dagger from Taranto, found in its scabbard and
thought to be late Rt:publican or early Augustan, had a sl ightly difft:rt:nt handle with a
cruciform pommel and no pronounced cenrral swell ing. l5
It has been argued that the Roman-type daggers from Aksia might bc Gallic, bur,
given tht: quantities of demonstrably Roman materia l found there, and the usual ab-
sence of such weapons from Gall ic contexts, a Roman identification of this weapon
appt:ars securt: .Z6
58 ROlf/1I11 Military Equipllltfl!

I
~ ~8
I
I
a
~==== ___....:.10cm
-
Figure 27: Rrpublimn (Jrrhery {Inri sling ",i.Hiles. /-3 Lmrl sliflgshof (Pl'rugia); 4-5 bal.'f'(i d(Jy
slingshot (NulI/ol/tin ({IIIIPS); 6--9 trilobate tanged iroll arrordlftids (NuIlI",uia camps),

Bows, Slings, {Iud Artillery (Figs.27-9)

Arrowheads, catapult bolts and stone shot, and slingshot are all archaeologically at-
tested . T he laSt often bore inscribed insults and political slogans cast OntO them
during manufaclUTc, as with a large group from Perugia. Arrowheads were mostly
ranged and ofborh flat-bladed (some barbed) and trilobate (triple-bladed) forms, ~tnd
a number of single-barbed Celtic-style arrowheads from Homan contexts may indicate
the use of auxiliary arche rs. Socketed catapult bolts had pyramidal heads and have
been recovered from both Spanish and French sites , as well as from Sm ihel. zl
The Romans emp loyed many peoples who traditionally specialized in archery or
slinging, wh ilst they adopted artillery technolo/:,'y wholesale from the Hel lenistic
Greeks (who became the major cncmy after the Carthaginians). Throughout the Ro-
man period, artillery technology was sprcad by knowledgeable defectors, and this is
probably how the Romans acquired it in the first plaee. z8
Pan of the frame of an arrillery piece was excavated at Ampurias (Emporion) in
Spain, probably dating to the 2nd century flC and possibly associated with the cam-
paigns ofCato. Regardless of whether it was Roman or used against them, it seems to
be represemative of the artill ery in use at the time. Another, similar, frame was exca-
vated at Caminreal, this time associated with a range of Roman weaponry rtnd
equipment, and this has been dated to the first third of the 1st century Be. Washers of
this period also come from Ephyra, Azai la, and from a shipwreck at Mahdia.l'l
Stone shot were found in t he circumvallation eamps at Numantia, or where they
had been hurled aga inst the walls of the town itself (indeed, some split shot may be
the result of d irect impact). T hey were made from local sandstone and Schuhen
4 The & pllb/icull Period 59

~
~
,.-
..
ft1lJ
r<
Ii
~
". .
" ,
'
.
-,
l
-'

Figure 28: R£pub/icun unil/try. Fmm, and r.:UsftffS from (I mftlplI/1 (Emponon).

identified four specific calibres: 101llill(1 (4360 g), 3 111;11(1 (1308 g), 2 lIIill11 (872 g), and I
milltl (436 g). Ten mill(l shot were nOt found in Numantia itself, and Schulten specu-
lated that these may only have been uscd in the d efe nce of the Roman camps. By
contrast, the shot from Cace res d Vicjo wcre much heavie r, ranging from 3 1 to 88I11ill(/,
leading Ulben to suggest that they were designed to be dropped from the walls of the
camp, rather than shot from a weapon. Examples from At he ns may date to the siege of
Sulla in 86 BC. JO
It has been suggested th:1t smallcr stone missiles may have been intended as
hand -thrown stones, but whilst this may well have formed a secondary function under
certain circumstances (such as sieges), there is no evidence of Stones being made ex-
clu sivel y for such a role. Veget ius mentioned large pieces of Stonc being used in the
defe nce of city walls. J1
Catapult bolts, like the pi/lilli, had square-sectioned pyramidal heads, reflecting
their armour-piercing fun ction. Whereas the pi/filii used its weight to provide the impe-
tus for penetration, the catapult bolt rel ied upon its velocity, and it was precisely this
which would militate against the usc of a ' leaf-shaped ' b lade, since any slight inaccu-
racy in manufact ure might lead to the missile d iverging from its intcnded eoursc. It is
indeed ap propriate that Plautus shou ld refer to the pi/11m CfllllplI/lurillllJ. The heads of
exc:lVated exam ples normally form about one-third of the length of the metal portion
of the missile, although examplc:.s have been found where this proportion can be as lit-
tle as 25%. Socket diameters al so vary widely (15-28 mm) and, as with the size of stone
shot, this may reflect the differing cal ibres of the machines that shot them .3z
60 Rmllflll Mi/illff) Eqllipl1ll'llf

-=====________ ~2,~m

~
•• 0
~
Figllrt' 29: RPpuM({III{lI1il/I'1)'. I(I-r lVashr!"S (Epll)'mj; 2a-d bal1ista o(lllrojr.:I'IKhrsoj 10, J, 2.
mi na (N'(!fllm/ia "'lIIpS); 3n-f rtllflPlIl1 boIls (II-d./ NUII/fllllifl rtlmp.i, I'DJrn-,s).
(Illti I
4 TIl, &plJb/icon Period 61

Modcrn reconstructions achieve maximum rangcs by shooti ng at an angle approach-

ing 45°, but both boh and stone-throwing weapons wcre probably used in direct
shooting, unlcss it was desirable to lob missiles ovcr a city wal1. 33

Armour
Shields (Fig. 30)

Thc curved oblong legionary shield (often callcd t he SCIJII/III. although this term was
used for all shields) was an enduring feature of the Roman banle line. Although the
shapc evolved, it remained basically thc same, presumably because it was ideal for thc
funct ion required of il. Livy stated with this type of shicld was first adopted for all
three elasses of legion:u), HOOpS by the Romans during the Latin Wars of the 4th cen-
tury Be, replacing the round shi elds prcvious ly in usc. Representational evidence is
now thought to confirm an It:llian origin :\-!
A large, curved plywood sh idd excavated at Kasr al- I-Iarit in the Egypt ian Fayyum
was originally identified as having Ix:longed to a Celt ic mercenary serving with the
PlOlemaic forces. However, it is remarkably similar to the sculptural represen ta tions of
shields carried by soldiers on the altar ofDomitius Ahenobarbus and the monumcnt of
Aemi lius Paull us (Fig. 1).35
Polybios was imrigued by the Roman infantry sh ield and he stated that it was con-
vcx. and mcasured four feet (1.1 8 m) long by two-and-a-hatf (0.74 m) broad. with a
thickness of a palm 's breadth at the rim. He described its construction as follows:

It consists of two layers of wood fastcned together with bull's hide glue: the
outer surface is then covered first with canvas and then with ca lf-skin. The up-
per and lower edges arc bound with iron to protect the shield bot h from the cut-
ting sHokes of swords and from wear when rest ing on the ground. In the centre
is fixed an iron boss, which tu rns aside the heavy impact of Stones, pikes and
weighty missiles in geneml.3t>

By comparison, the shield found in 1900at Kasral-Harit. in the I---ayyum, was 1.28 m
long (4.3 Rft) and 0.635 m wide (2. 1 Rft), was fashioned from plywood ofthrcc layers
ofwoodcn strips, possibly birch wood, la id with the outer ones horizontal . The nine or
ten vert ical strips were between 6 and 10 cm in breadth, the forty horizontal ones
2.5-5 cm. An imerest ing aspect of the shield's form, and one which directly aITected
the dynamic of its behaviou r, was the fact that it was thicker in the ct: ntre than at the
edgcs (giving il strength near the boss and nexibil ity ncar the rim). Both inner and
OUler surfaces were covered with lamb's wool felt (the inner cove ring overlapping that
on [he outcr face by 5-6 em): the edges were not bound with metal. The shield had a
wooden 'barleycorn' boss with a vertical rib (spiNO) attached wit h iron nai ls above and
below it on [he shield fa ce, and a horizontal handgrip beh ind the boss. The remains of
rings, probably used for attaching carrying straps, were also found inside thc shield .
Fragmentary iron bosses of sim ilar form arc known from Rc nieblas and Ca mi nrcalY
62 ROII/IIII llli/i/ary Equiplllnll

:-_~~===~ __~30cm
Figurl' 30: IVpllill;aJII sllli4t/5. 111-1" EXfllflplr/01"'(/ flllVl.lrtll-l/arit; 2 di(lgrtllllll/tllirrross-Sfflirm
(f/OI to .vlIll'); 3-4 boSSI's from CtII,,;'m'(Jl.

Allowing for the sort of vari(uions in detai l that circumstances demanded, there
seems 10 be lit tle doubt tiltH rhe sh ields described by Polybios. found 3 1 Kasr al- Hari l,
and depicted in monumental scul pture are of a common type. Hcconstructions of this
type of sh ie ld have suggested a we igh t of around 10 kg, heavy but nOl impossibl e for a
trained sold ie r to w i eld.~
Roman cavalry seem originally to have used circular ox-h ide shields. descri bed as re-
sembli ng sacrificial cakes, typifit:d by the famous relie f from the Lacus Curti us.
4 Tlu R£pllblimn Period 63

Polybios ment ioned, however, that they changed over 10 the Greek patlern ffirmly
and solidly made') because th is was superior. II is unclear from his comments when
{his change occurred.l'I

Body A,.1110 /1,. (F'ig. 31)

Before (he 1st century liC, body armour was vel)' closely linked with social status and
wealth. Polybios mentioned a brass breastplare, or peeloml" saying it was a span (c. 230
mm) square and used by the poorer legionaries. Such breastplates had long seen usc in
the Italian peninsu la in si ngle disc, triple disc and rectangular analOmical forms, well
:mesred by find s from Campania, Puglia and Abruzzo-Molise. A possible example was
found in {he 'Camp of Marcell us' ncar Numantia, but th is was circu lar (diameter 170
rom), nor square (fragments of others are recorded from the fortifications around the
town, up to 2S0mm diameter). It consisted of an embossed, circular, copper-alloy piate
with a raised central boss su rrounded by lesser concentric circles, the whole object orig-
inally having 25 even ly-spaced ri vet holes around its periphery. T hese apparently
served 10 attach some SOrt of backing 10 the plate. At the bortom was a recrangular
plate, riveted to the rim and supported by a reinforcing srrip, the whole having the ap-
pearance of a rather makesh ift repai r. This was presumably part of the suspension
arrangements, and two dome-headed rivets at the end of the plate may have been for
attachment of a leather strap.""
Those legionaries who mer the property qualification wore mai l body armour (/orim
htlllltllll). Ring mail (erroneously 'chain' mail) was devcioped by Celtic peoples and
adopted by the Romans, as Varro asserred, although there seems to have been a change
in those habitual ly using it, perhaps with it being worn by a greater social range than in
barbarian societ ies. Fragments ofwhar mighr have been coppcr-alloy mail wert:: recov-
e red from Ren ieblas, but since mail is so rarely deposited in the archaeological record,
it is not surprising that we do not have much surviving from the Republic. O ther pieces
were reported to have been found in the 10mb of the Scipios in Rome. In all periods, a
padded undergarment would have been worn beneath mai l (sometimes withplery:gr.S),
of the type described in the Ik &bus &lIicis (the Ihomcofllhchus) and possibly known as
the subamlnlis. Whether pftrygts were made of leather or st iffened linen is un known,
but at leaS[ one fresco (the Sacrifice of lph igenia in the House ofthe Ven ii at Pompeii)
depicts them as being white, so the latter is at least possib l e.~1
One of the reasons for th is comparative scarcity, even in later pe riods, lies in the
simplicity of th is type of armour. With only intt: rl inking rings to give it form, t here was
little wear of the componcnt parts and, even when quite severely damaged, it could
easi ly be repaired. In fact, sma ll pieces of mail in the archacological record may repre-
sent damaged fragment s wh ich had been rep l aced.~z
Sculptural depict ions arc slightly more promising, oncc Ihe convent ions used fo r
showing mail in Roman art (sec Chapter I) are raken infOaceou nt.A{ Delphi, the mon-
ument of Aemi lius Paull us shows Roman soldiers wearing belted, thigh-length
cuirasses with shoulder doubl ing. This last feature is found on Cehic, as well as Ro-
man, mail and reflects the fac t that the shoulders arc particularly vulnerable to the
long Celtic slash ing sword, and in need of reinforcement. In form, such doubl ing
64 ROfll(JII MilifflfY £qllip11l1'1l1

F'if.{IIf" J/: Rrpllb/im" (/r/llOl/r, I/rnl.ff-

p/a/l' (Nlllllflllf;tI). ~=======-______~10cm

usually harked back to the shoul de r pieces of Greek cuirasses. The Alt:H of Dom irius
Ahenobarbus shows soldiers in similar cu imsses. although this time rhe sculpwrs re p-
resented m;lil by surface-chise ll ing. In both se ts of reliefs, Roman c:lv:llrym(;n also wear
thigh-kngth mai l armour. An undated relief from Osuna in Spain. thought [() be Re-
publican. apparently shows legionaries equipped with rectangular shields with central
ribs, htlrnets. and rnail.~·l
Scale arrnour (lori{,11 Sf/Illmlil/(I) , was made up of small sect ions of metal sheet , wired
to their neighbours and sewn to a fabric backing. Less Ocxible than mail. it was never-
thekss popular throughout the Homan period, possibly because it was easier to
manufacture (alt hough presumably more difficult to maintain). t\ cu irass in the Royal
Ontario Museu m has hccn assembled from pieces of scale sa id to come from Lake
Trasimene, but the association ofm ilitalJ' equipment with battlefie ld sites is very un -
usual and, in this case, perhaps:I little suspicious. No examples of sca le have ye t been
recognized in the archaeological record from the Republie:m period, nor arc there rep-
resentat ions of Homan soldiers wearing it.-I-I
No examples of Republican greaves are known, but two intrigu ing devices found at
Caceres have been suggested as presses for shaping them from copper-:llloy sheet.
Polybios me nt ioned greaves as in use in his time , although it has been suggestt:d thar
each mom only wore one, on his left leg, and this is illustrated by the Osuna relief. This
practice finds a parallel in gladi :Horial comb:lt. where a greave was frequently worn on
the left. The Stance of the soldier (or gladiator) with a thrusting sword was with the
left foot forwa rd. so that we igh t could be put beh ind the blow as it was delivered. By
4 Th~ &publiClIfl P~ri()d 65

wearing a greave, he presented a com plete armourcovemge to any enemy attacking his
left side: hi s greave protected his lower leg, hi s sh ield the area up to his shoul ders, and
a helmet guard ing his head !5

Helfllets (Fig. 32)

Whilst many helmets survive from the Rcpubl ican period, paradoxically, only a minor-
ity can be directly connected with the Roman army. I\'(ost of the 'Montcfortino'
helmets (named after the type-find) arc from funerary deposits. These arc thought to
have becn t he helmets commonly in usc by Roman infantry from t he Punic Wars
through to the end of the Republic, since t hey arc the only type from Italy dating to
this period , and very similar helmet s arc later used by the Roman army. However, for
much of this period, Rome had no standing army and, since eq uipment was the per-
sonal propeny of those in military service, it is scarcely surpris ing that helmets arc
found in 'non-m ilitary' contexts. Moreover, givcn the limited amount of excavation,
and the comparat ive mrity with which helmets arc found on excava ted sites, even in
the early Principate, this funerary context becomes more crcdib1e. 46
Nevert heless, examples and fragme nts have been found in excavations in the Ibe-
rian peninsula that are not excl usively funerary contexts, as at Caminreal, Alfaro, and
Quintanas de Gormaz. Moreover, a helmet from Pizzighe[[one in northern Italy bears a
Latin ownersh ip inscription, the style of which suggestS a date in the second hal f of the
3rd century Be, thus apparently confirming the usc of this type of helmet by Roman
soldiers in this period. 41
The Montefort ino helme t had its origins as early as the 4th century Be, amongst the
same Celtic he lmets that were to spawn the Cool us type. With a hem ispherical cop-
per-alloy bowl beaten to shape, it was somet imcs finished with a crest knob at the
apex. Broad ly speaking, the evolution of the Montcfort ino helmet saw the neck-guard
increasi ng in size down to the early Principate, alt hough the basic shape remained
much the same. What did change was the method of manufac ture, with much cruder
workmanship first becoming apparent in the late 2nd century Be, perhaps after the
Marian army reforms, compou nded by the appearance of spinning in the early
Principate (sec Chapter 9).411
As Rome expanded into Celtic cultural regions, she came into contact with more
helmet types, such as the Cool us and the AgenlPort. It is true to say that many of the
Imperial Roman helmet types owe thcir genesis to this turbulent period , for various
native c lements began to provide a large portion of the auxiliary infantry and cavalry.
The origins of the Coolus and Montefortino helmets ~lTC much the same, the cop-
per-alloy Montefortino being taken into northern Italy by Celtic peoples (the Senones
in this region); theAgen and l:Un helmets exploited iron and dispensed wit h the hemi-
spherical bowl of t he other types. preferring instead an OV31 shape more su ited to that
of the human head. Also, whilst the earlier helmets genernlly had cheek-pieces that
were t riangu13r with three decorative bosses (recalling Italian-style breastplates), the
AgenIPort cheek-pieces provided better protection: projections at the front gave addi-
tional cover to the cheekbone and jaw without hindering the wearer's field of vision. It
was this type of check-piece that became stan dard on subsequent Homan helmets.4~
66 IWlJlflll llli/i/(iry FfjlliplIIl''''

- -'-
Figllr/' JZ: Rl'pllMimll "dllll'l.>. I UIIJ:"Of.':" (Rrili.rh M IISI'IIIII): 2 Cnslrlkllli (Nol 10 Sill/I';'
Chrf'ipirm. J O~)'fllfJi(l: 4/)or/mla.

Polybios rcc:Ll lt:d Ihal It.:gionarics wore a plume of th rcl: pu rple or black fC:lrhers I Vz
fe Ci (IlA5rn) high: although spccific:llly referring {O the Nas/al;:1( rhe:: rime, he implied
that all three lint:s of heavy infantry (/I{fsklri,pr;fl(iprs, friar;,) we re t:llu ipped in similar
fashion. Some soldie rs on dlC Ahcnobarbus rel id wear long (horse-hai r?) crests that
hang down the reaT of the hel mer TO the shou lders. C:H!Sar d cscri hcd an :J 11:lck by t he
Ncrvii which was so rapid that his legionari es d id nOI have enough time eit her co re-
move their sh ield t:O\'c rs or pUI on rhciriflsigll;({. a tcrlll which in Ihis casc may refer to
helmet crests. At least one ofCacs:lr's legions. the /'1!io VA/(fllr/flf. appears to ha,"c h:Jd a
di stincr i\'c crest ing arrangement, giving rise to thc 1O!!"0fllf'fl (' Larks,) of that un it. ;/J
' I'he depiuion of helmets on sculpture is notoriously variable in quality, hut the in -
f:Jntrymcn on rhl: alrarof l) om irius t\ hcnobarbus scem to bc wearing the ~ l onH::fo nin o
type of hclml:L This monumenr also depicts a c:J\':llryman we:Jring wha t is clcarly a
l3oeoti~trr helmer. a broad-brimmed Iype dating back 10 Ii dienislic times and rcca lling
Polyhios' comrnt:nt aboul Roman cavalry being cq uipped in the Grcek m:Jnnl:r.~!
4 Tlte Repllblir:an Period 6)

Figure 33: IVpubliwn btlt-plates. /-3 Casti//ejo; 4 Rmieblas camp 1//; 5 Cticercs e/ Viejo.

Other E quipment

Bells (Fig. 33)

Beyond the fact that soldicrs wore belts (they are visible on both the Altar of Domitius
Ahenobarbus and the Aemilius Paullus monument), we arc unable to say much about
Republican forms. Nevertheless, the ve ry fact that belrs were worn with mail armour is
sign ificant, becausc modcrn experimeors demonstrate that belting a mail cuirass at
the waist transfers some of its weight ooro the hips, rhu s relieving the shou lders of
some of rheir burden . With the thigh-length mail of the Republic, this would be partic-
ularlv beneficial to the wearer:IZ
\Vhilsr it is not known how widely belt-plates were used (and their scarcity may in-
dicate that they were the exception rather than the rule), some arc known from the
Spanish sites around Numantia and from Caceres eI Viejo. An openwork design was
featured on a copper-alloy cxample from Castillejo, with a metal backing and four
dome-headed ri vets, one in each corner. This plate was 40 mm widc and 45 mm long.
Of a similar width, but much longer, was another piece (45 mm by 148mm) from the
same site wh ich exh ibits a pounced interwoven design with in rectangular borders. It
was attached to the belt by thrce rivets at either end . Cast illejo also produccd part of a
similar width plate (49 mm) with a triangular projection terminat ing in a large disc
with a cem ral rivet of uncertain purpose. Although the latter bore more than a passing
resemblance to later dagger frogs, unlikc them it in fact had a spike beh ind the disc, in-
dicating that it was originally attached to leather.53
68 RomllN Militm}' Eqllipmf'llt

Wh ilst these items can quite reasonably be ident ified as belt-plates, two further
pieces 3fC open to quest ion. A rectangular plate from Rcnicblas camp, embossed with
three groups of three circular motifs, separated by decorative borders, and possessing
no obvious me:.tns of :lrrachmcnr, must remain dubious. An intriguing plate from
Caceres eI Viejo had four rivet holes on one orits naTTOW sides, a central hole, :.tnd then
a rcctanguhtf slot. It was decorated with a circu lar design with S _motifs. 54

eIMi.'s, CflPpS, And Bools

Our ignorance of th e equ ipment and garb of He publican soldiers is almost [Oral : for not
only is the archaeological evidence lacking, but abo there is h:mlly :.tny representa-
tion;]] material [0 help fill in the gaps. The Padova ccnturion certainly seems [0 be
wearing a sag/III! (Fig. 22), the rectangular cloak draped around the neck and fastened
at thc front (on the right shoulder, as is usual) with a brooch, but his tunic is fairly form-
less and his boots not rendered in any great detail.,ls
On thc altar of DomiriusAhenobarbus, the soldiers wear shore-sleeved tunics that
rcach to just above the knee (Fig. 2 1), but only the caval ryman seems [0 be wearing a
cloak (perhaps a ,.aKlIIII). T Ile officer figure has a /Ja/llriafllmt/III! draped over h is left
shou lder and looped over the left arm, T hepdllriafl/f'fltlllllwas the [[auitional attire ofa
high- ranking officer and, as such, is often shown on statues of emperors in lmer peri-
ods, but it was also worn by centurions in the 1st centurv t\1):~
' J'he m/iga('oflarer periods arc nowhere shown on Rep~blican military depictions, so
we have no idea at what point this type of footwcar was introduced into the Roman
army: the soldiers on the Ahenobarbus rclief arc depicted barefoot. T he Padova centu-
rion wears plain boots, although detail could obviously have been added in paint, as
happened on later tombstones (Chapter 1 ):S7

Stallr/anA alld fUusiw/ /flslrlllllenls (Fig. 34)

No examp les of Hepublican standards survive, Polyb ios barely mentioned them, and-
with the exception of the laler Republi c - there are few rcpresentations, Pliny the El -
der stated that the eagle was first adopted as the principal legionary standard in 104 BC
under i\i.trius, replacing the wolf, m inotaur, horse, and bull. A rif'!/arillJ of C. Valerius
Flaecus seems to be the earl iest dated representation (82 Be) and shows one flanked
by two other standards. the cagle itself being depicted perched on a thunderbolt with
wings raised, The accompanying standards arc adorned with alternating crescents and
discs, have pendant straps hanging from a (missing) crossbar, and eapitalletlers Ii and
1', presumed 10 stand for h(flst(llij andp{rillriprs}, the eagle being in the ca re ofrhelfitlfii.
Coins continue to bear simi lar representations down to the famous 32-31 BC legionary
issue of M. Antonius. '~
Noexamplcs of Republ ican musical instruments have been found in a military con-
text but literary sources state that the romll, tllb(l. and bllrill{{ were used for signalling
and watch cal ling. The early ron/II was a curving brass horn. with or without a
cross-brace. smaller than the instrument which is well represented in the imperial pe-
riod . It appears in paintings and as both actual examples and terracotra votive models.
4 "/"he R£pull/iam Period 69

Figure 34: R£pub/iam stal/t/art/s. I denarius ole. Valerius F/accus; 2 au reus oiM. AI/tonius.

The clearesT representation of the instrument and how it was held ro be blown is on a
sculpture from Osuna.-Sq

Cava!ry Equipmetlt
Lit tle is known about Republican cava lry equipment , so rhe adoption of the horned
saddle from Celtic designs can on ly be specu lated about. Spurs were found at sites
around N umantia and at Caceres el Viejo, as well as at Caminreal, and snaffl e bits came
from Re nieblas and Cam inreal. w

Tools fI!ld Imp!emetl/s (Fig. 35)

Some [Ools and implements have been excavated, and a pickaxe, whi ch bears a vcry
close resemblance to its much more numerous Imperial desce ndants, was fou nd at
Pena Redonda. One com paratively common find from Re pu blican sites is a range of
sturdy iron spikes with loops through which a ring is passed. Weigh ing around 320 g
each, these are fa irly substan tial, bur the ir function is far from cerrain. Ofte n identi-
fi ed as rent pegs, t hey are more plausible as te thering pegs for animals for, as Schultcn
pointed out, a legion would have needed 35 pack an imals just to carry them if they
were tem pegs! Moreover, a fragmem of Polybios recorded rhat The Celt- Iberians teth-
ered t he ir horses to just suc h an iron peg. Wooden tent pegs were used in t he
Pri ncipare and have the advantage of being both easy ro manufacTure and light (see
ChapTe r 5). No examples of Republican leather tems are as yeT known.hI
Caesar described various obstacl es used by his army during rhe siege of Alesia, in-
cl uding sfimu/i, short double-ended spikes inse rted into foot-long logs sunk into t he
 70 Roman Military Equiplllef/!

.
..
'

.... •

~~~_~~=_....:;20Cm
Figllrf' 3.5: Rrpub/;(flll/(Joll. jJl'gs, ((fld spurs. I Pida,\ 'f (Perla Rfr/ml{/a); 2- 3 spurs (Ctim'l's); 4
spur (NulI/(lII/ia mlJlps); 5-6 pfgS (NuN/mu/a (amps); 7-9 prgs (Ctircrn).

ground . Ex~mple s of these were excavated by STOffel. More recent excavations have
found examples of caltrops (lFi/JII/i), four-pointed iron objects arranged so that, wh ich-
ever way they fell, one spike was always pointing upwards. 6Z
4 The Republican Pmotl 71

Notes
I. E(]uipment befon: the Pun ic Wars: ConJlolly 1981. 91 ~ 11Z; 1989a: Adam and Rouveret 1988: Bonini
1994: SmallZOOO: Burns 2003.
2. Numant ia: Curchin 1991, 34-9. Re ni ebla~: Keay 1988, .'6; G6mel- Pantoja and Morales 200Z. Casti llejo:
ibid. 38. Peria Redund a: ibitl. 40. Smihel: HOIY"t 1997. Entremont:Coutagne 1987,64-5; Ri vct 1988,40.
Ckere~ el Viejo: Keay 1988. 43. The archaeo logi~"l sources are Numantia and the Roman s ite~ in its
vicinity (Schulten 1927; 19Z9). along with Qicen:) cl Vicjo (Ulbert 1985).Sulla: Bcn"enuti 2005; Russo
and Russo 2005. Pompeii: I~urns forthcoming. Gf1Id: bteni \' 2005.
J. Castellruf: Alvlln:l. Arl.a aJld Cubero Argente 1999. Caminreal: Vieeme n u/. 1997. Delos sword aJld
others: Connolly 1997.
4. AJesia: Ve rehere de RefTye 1864. Mooern French work: Reddt n ul. 1995: Brouqu ier- Redd~ 1997.
Modern re-aSSCSSmeJlt: Sievers 1995. ~r: Couissi n 1926, Fig. 87: Connolly 198 1. 2Z7 Fig. 8. I'uy
d'hsolud: Gif1luit Z002. Osuna: Sie\'ers 1997
Domit ius Ahenob;J.rbus: \..Q:lrelli 1968: Robinson 1975, Pis. 46.)..6. Acmilius Paullus: Kahler 1%5.
Pillim action: Webster 1985b. II: 21: ConJlolly 1989b. 162. Medieval missiles; Ed ge and I'addock 1988,
35; 91. Experiments: Ju nkelmunn 1986, 188. Barbed head: Connolly 2000b. 46.
7. Wooden ri"et: I'lu tareh. Murius 25. Untempe red shank: Keppie 1984, 102. Wooden rivet dismissed:
Conno lly 2001~2. 2. Expcriments: Haines 1998.60.
8. Samnite: Re inaeh 1907. Spanish; Schulten 1911: cr. Sanz 1997 ..125-4J. Etruscan: Connolly 1981. 100.
Tarquinia: Irx.OJ. Fig. 5. Vulei: Connolly 1997. 44. Two "ersions: Polyb. VI.2J. See Small ZOOO. Z26-9.
9. I'ol)'bio~: Vl,2J.Cf. Schu lten 1914.
10. Castdlruf: 1I,,,rez Arl.a and Cubero Argente 1999. T alamonaceio: Schulten 1914, 489; Luik 2000.
NumaJltia pi1o: Schulten 1914; 1927. 249-51; 19Z9. 214. Ckcres el Viejo: Ulbert 1985, 105-8.
Caminreal:Vieenterlm. 1CJ97, 181-6. Alesia: Verchtrede RefTye 1864. Figs. 5-8, PI. >"""(111 : Reddcnul.
1995.148-9. Entremont: Coutagne 1987, Figs. 146.148. Eph yra: Connolly 1997, Fig. Z, F~J. Rcnicblas:
SchuiteJl I9Z9, I'1.25,4
11. 1'alamonaccio: Luik ZOOO. C:mellruf: i h'llrcz t\rt-a and Cubero Argente 1999. Ephyra: Connolly 1997.
Fig. 2.F~J
12. Rcnicblas: Schu lten 1929. 1'1. 25.8. Valencia: Co nnolly 1997. Fi g. 3, G. Caminreal: Vicenter/"I. 1997.
18 1-4, Fig. 24-5. I'ei'l~ RcrJonda: ibid. 1927. PI. 47, 1. H ~adlcsspila: Connoll y 1997. 44
IJ. Renicblas; Schu lten 1927. PI. 25.1. Castillejo: ibid 1'1. .14,6. Osuna: Sie"crs 1997, Z7S, t\bb. 2.
Caminreal: \kenter/(II. 1997, 184-6. Fig. 26-7.
14. Verchcre de RdTyc 1864, Figs. 9-IJ. I'ls.xx II - II I. Redd ~rlul. 1995. 148-9.
15. Smihc:l: HOf\'lIt 1997, III . Fig. 7. Single-barbed heads: Roth-Rubi ({fli. ZOO4, 4J....4. Taf. 4,F64-5 and
1'af.7.B38.
16. PoI)"b. VI,2J
17. Butt: l'oIyb. VI,25. Spearhead shape: Bishop 1987, 1 JO~I \.
18. 'Stiletw'blades:Schulte n 1929,1'15.25,5;45,4.
19. I'ol)"b. VI.Z5.
20. SJI(/(/"' ·madloTra'. GkllJiw lIisptll/intJis: Connolly 1991a. 361. I'ado\"',l: frJnzoni 1982; Ke ppie 1991 b
2 1. Dclos:Sicbert 1987.637. Flgs.17-19
2Z. Smi hcl: Horvat 1997, l 1J, Fig. 10. Giubiasco: Connolly 1997. SO. Fi g. 8. Vrhnika. Caminreal.andt\lcsia:
Rapin200I. Jcricho:StiebeI2004.2JO.
23. Long §word: Schult~n 1929. i'l s. 25,9; 26.6 (scabbard). Spanish examplcs: Sandars 19 13, 228-31.
Spani sh/uk-ora: ibid. VI-65; Quesada Sanz 199Za: 1997,61-171. (:;Seercs: Ulbert 1985. PI. 25.201.
Caminreal:\'iecnte({u/. 1997.19J....4.Figs.J2,J4
24. Veg. I,IZ: WehsterI98Sb, 12. 1Z9.C f.Polyb. I II ,1 14.
25. N~ti\"c form: SaJldars 1913, Z65-8, Figs. J7,6- 10, 39, 40; Schulten 1927, PI. 5J; Filloy Nic''lI and Gil
Zubillaglll997;Sanz 1 997,27J.-305.~cc:rC3: Ulbcrt 1985, 1'1. Z5,195-9. Num~nti~:Schulten 1927, Pis.
34.1~J;47,7; 1929, 1'1. 45,1. Caminle~l : Vicc:ntenul 1997.194. Figs. J5-6. Coins: Kent 1978, PI. Z7.98.
I'adm'll: Franzoni 1982; Keppie 199 1b. Ciruelos: Connolly 1997, Fig. IJ.C. Exeter: Scott in Holbrook
~nd Bidwell 1991. 26J.-5. Fig. 120, I;efConnolly 1997,56. Taranto: Maekensc:n 2001.
26. Couissin 1926. 30Z-3, Fig. 87: Reddc rf"l 1995. 145. Fig. 34.Z.
 72 Romall ii/iliff"}' Equip",nll

27. I'crugia: Kcppic 19S4,12.,.... S,Fig,J6. Emrcrnollt:Cuutagn<: 1987 , Fi g. 150. Pu yd'Jssolud:(jiraultZOOZ .

.n rigs. 16-23. Singlc-hl:Jdn] arrowheads: Sic,""rs 1997. Ahh. 1: Brou'luicr-Ikddc 1997 , Fi g. 6; (jimul!
lOOl ..n Fi gs. 5.... 10, Smihd I lorval 1997. 111-1 ." Fig. 8, I-S
211. Ardll:ry: CouislOn 1985. 21l!!. Slinging: Griffiths 19119. Z67- 9. Arti lkry: 1'.br~dcn 1969. 17-1
,1.
29. Emporion: Sl'hramm 19l'10, 40--6. CalO\ campaig"s: Kcay 19HI! . . Caminrca l: Vic<:nw N (fl, 1997.
16~1. Figs. '>-21. Ephyra: Baatl. 19/9. A/.aib: \r,n:ntcrlill 1997.197, n. 14. ,\ Iahdia: Baa tz 1985
30. Numami a: S<:hu]tcn 1927.264--5. 1'1. S". Can;r"" 1I1hcn 1911.i. 111 - 14. Athens: Vtilling \997, 97-8
., 1. I land -throw]] -'I(JI ,"', Iba!z 191Uh; Griffiths 1992. Cit y walls: Vcg. IV.ZJ
.,z. Bolls: Vcrchcr" dc HIM. 1'1. XX II: Schult"" 1'll7. ZSI 1929. ZI4-5: Gibert 1985. 105. l'illIlII
rtflajJllllm';",,,:
JJ. IhatJ;inSdlr"Jn\lllI9ilO,ix~x.
:)4. S",I/"": Eichherg 19i17. l.i ,,,)': VIII.K Italian origin: Eicb hcrg 19H7. 17 1~5
35. K:mal·l brit: Kimm ig; 1940. Celtic il,it!. I ()<)~ II. Cf. Connol ly 1981. 1.,1. Abenobarbus: Coarclli 1968
Paullus: Kahle" 1965.
36. I'olyh. VI.2.>. Cf. Cdtic binding: Dion~,iu, XIV.9: Pliny NJI XVI.Z09
37. Kimmig 1940. !O6-·9. Ih,n iebh" I~o"kius 19i19. 271 citing Schulten 1929, 1'1. 39.6 . CJmin rc~ l : Vicenter!
,,/. 1997. 19S----6. Figs.4(1---2.
38, Ikconstrun ions: C0I1IlolI~' 191'! 1. Ll1: J unkclmann 198(,. 176 (Augustan \,cr,ion)
3<). Polyb, VUS. LacusCorriusrclief: l{ohin"mI97,i.1'1. .lOi
40. Polybios: VI.B. Earii"rexaml'lcs: Con nol ly 19i1l. 101 Fig,. 9~ 14: BurnsZOOJ. 71~2, Campof ,\ larccllus
Schulten 1927. I'ls. 44.19: SO. Other finds: Sdluiten 1 929.Z.i7~9 .P I .26. 1 9:2Z
41. QualifIcation: I'ol yb. VI.B.Origin: Varro.lkljng.ILfl. V.11 6.Ce ltieex:lmplcs:CA 1988. 115~17:Stcad
1989. 3-4: ~hillcr 191'!6: I{usu 1969. Zll>--li.I'b. 1·..,----6. J.teniehh" Schulten 1929. PI. Z6.Z0. T Oll1bof (hc
Scipios: LibcrJli 1997. 29. 1'1mrr"oll/urhu,,, Ik Mu.. lvI/In' xv. !-iI/IHflm,,!i,,: IIA Sf!)"rus 6.11; Bishop 1995:
/Jiu .. Tomlin 1998.62.1'IN-ygrs: I{ohin"m 197.i. 149. Sacrilice of ll'higenia' p<.:rs. obs (:\ICB )
4Z. BishopI989a.2.Mailrejlai,,:cf. l{ u,uI969.Z7il
43. Greek doubling: Connol ly 19i1l .I Z4--.i.O,una: l~ oh i n"ln 1975. Fig. 175
44. Trasimeoc·: l{obinson I975. IS4.PI,.4J4-S
45. Grcal'e pre,ses: ~lutz 19i17. l'ul~' hius: VI. 2-'. Cbdiator\ stance: (;rant 1967.l'ls. 4-7
46. '~ l ol1leforrino': I{obinson 1975. 1,;--25: P;]dd'K:k 19S5: Que~ada Sallz 199Zb: 1997b. Cont~XIS: I':ldd oek
1985.143.-4.
47, CJminreal : Vicemct/al. 1<J97.196. Fi g.4.>.A lfaro: Iriarte ~I"/. 1997.Z4 7. Fig.9.QuinlanasdcGorm:lz:
Qucsad;] S;]nz 1997h. 159. Fi g. 6. I'iuighettone: Junkell11 ann 2000~ . 60
48. Ori;::in.~ ; Connuli" 19i1l. I.B, C(~)lus: I~ohill.,on 1975. 2(>--41. Cruder forms: PadJ oek 1985. 145
49. A;::cn/Port: I{ohinson 1')75.42- .1. Sellones: Conno lly 198 1, 120. Origins: Robinson 1977: Conno ll\'
1989a.
SO. Plumcs: Pol~b. V1.2J. Ahenoh~rbu s : Owelli IW*l. Ca",~r< 11(; 11 21. AI"u""" Bishop 1990a
5 1. Boeotian: C()nnoll~' 19i11. 7J Fi gs . .'i-C.. l'olyh. VLZ.;
52. EXI:>crimems:G;]rlick l')ilO,1'!
53. C;]stillcjo: Sdlult~n 1927. Pis . .>5.29: 4Z. 2- '>. I.ater frop: (;rew anJ (;riffllhs 1991. Figs. 15. 163. 165:
16.1 66-75.
54. I{enichlas:&'hult"n 1929. 1'1. 44, C:keres: lJlhert 198.;.1'1.10.65
.'~5. Padm'a: Franwni 19i1Z. Fi g. I: Keppie 1991b
56. Ahcnoh;]ri)"s: Owelli 196il. NF J,L'. ·"al"d"II/flllIIII/·. Offi ce rs: K cppi~ 1984. 1'1. 5a--d. Emperors:
I{obinson 1975. I'ls.4'>(1---2.Ccntllrion>=i/JI(l. Pb.44 Z. 465: Horn 1981.13 Fig
57. I'adol';]: Fr~n lOni 19HZ. Fig, 4: Keppie 1991 b. 115
58. Eagle: PlinyNIIX.16.Coins: Keppie 19S4.l'ls.4and 12
59 , Conlll and ,,,/,,,: Cicero S"IIII V.17. !Juri",,: Cicero ,lll1rill" 9.22: ef. Cacsar Iv//. (''h-'. IUS. Early rom,,:
Strong 19S0. ri g. 60: Sjli\'c~' 1')97. Fi g. 156: Kiihn~ and Ewiglcben 2000. Fig. 67; .\ Iu seo di Vil la Giu lia.
Rome and .\ [ usoArciu,ologico. Firellz~. per:;.oh,. OSllna: Sla~' 1994.1'1. 11 4.1
60. Spurs: Schulten 1927.1'ls.3';.17. 19.ZI--t:.'6.19: 1929, pI. ZI.Z3:Ulberr 1985. PI.IO.51 --3:Viccntetl"/
1997.196. Fig. 44. Bit" &'huiren 1927, Pis..'.i.Z5: 36.Z0-1: Vieentcfltil 1997.196. Fig. 45
61. Pickaxe:&'hu l {~n 1927,l'ls.47. 14 alld .i4.I.Telheringpcp:Schultcn 1927. 1'1. 39.J--5: Ulocrr 1985. 1'1.
26.212--24: Polybios: Schuircn 1927 ci ling Frag. 9S.Wooden J:>cgs: e.g. C uric 1911.310
62. Slill/"Ii: C;]CS;]r: BGVII. ?>: J.teddt ~llIl.. 1995. ISZ. Fi g.. IS. "lfil",/i, IIrou qu icr· lkddc 1997. Fig. 2.
 5 From Augustus to Hadrian
As Rome consolidated the territorial gains of the Republican pe riod , her army became
more sedentary, alrhough not to rhe exclusion of all strategic movement. When new ar-
eas such as Britain came lnlO rhe Empire, the army was forced 10 reorganize it s
dispositions, shu m ing both legions and {Juxilio as the need arose. Some arcas, like the
Voralpcn land, were abandoned completely because the advance of the frontier region
rendere d them mili tarily irrelevant. All this military act ivity led to the freque nt aban-
don ment of sites when ga rrisons were changed and , inevitably, t he deposition of
surplus damaged equipmenr. The front iers in Britain were especially acri\'c bctwt:e n
the invasion of AD 43 and the reign of r..brcus Aurelius, with a correspond ingly great
:unount of discarded equ ipment. I
Individual sold iers, on th e lx:ach at Herculaneum and down a well at Velscn , were
un usual finds, but our study of rhis period is dominated by the Roman army's rubbish.
The finest example of thi s is the Sr.hll((hiigel (rubbi sh tip) at Vindonissa, additions to
which were apparently made each t ime the ga rrison legion changed. T he archaeologi-
cal record for this period is also particularly rich in terms of de position in water. with
many fin e examples of helmets, swords, and daggers know n from rivers. T here arc also
a number of bu rials with equ ipment of the early Principate, notably the 'Cananefate'
series with horses, mail , boots and other fiHings. and the 'Thracian' series with cavalry
'sports' helmets and other equ ipmen t. More enigmatic arc the deposits of equipme nt
from Kalkriese. identified as spoil from the Varian di sas ter of I\IJ 9.!
There is a very marked bias tOwards material from the north-western provinces,
lIIith the except ion of some finds of caval ry equipment from North Africa, and a grow-
ing corpus of published find s from sites in Pal est ine associated wit h the two Jewish
Hcvoh s. This might be due to the quality of information ret rieval (and dissemination)
practised by archaeologists in t he various regions, bUI il cou ld equally be due to differ-
e ntial depositional mechanisms in operat ion, a subject touched upon in Chapters 2
and 9.!
However, the period up to Hadrian is probably best known fo r its representat ional
evidence, for not only did it produce a magnifice nt Tradition offunemry military depic-
tion ( Figs. 4, 150), but also the quality of stare propaganda images pea ked with Trajan's
Column ( Plate 5), p3ralleled by the more provincial, but no less inreresting,Adamelisi
IrO/X'f'1I111 scu lptures (Fig. 53) .

\Veapo ns

Pi/a (Figs. 36-7)

Some of the best surviving ranged pita date from rhe 1st cen tury AD. Examples found
in the Augustan base at Oberadcn befort: the Second World War not only had intact
he ads, shanks, and collets, but even substanr ial portions of the wooden shafts sur-
74 ROil/fill Military &juipml!lll

______ ~==== ____ ~3~m

Fig",.,36: The Ollffar/m pib ~il!t (/0, 2o) derails of Ihejll1lrfioll btlr.-'Y'flilne slum/: (a) (IlIrhhtif'
(b), mId snorc:illgft'f'{/gf'S (r), rolln (tf). iwd rit)fts (1').
 Fro", Auguslus 10 IllldrUm 7S

_ .0
. -

!:
,
a
r J'
Cl 0

l8 m
0
: .~
,2:'3-- . ·5:: ..
0
.[',.l.
[]
t10 .
o
~~--======----~
~
Figure 37: Early Pri"ciptlle pi la. 1-9 HMds o"d shallks (I DolIgstefll!n; 2 Wllddoll I-li/I,' 3
ROftr..vi/; 4 Conlll1lfllm; 5--6 Hod I-lil/; 7 Villdollissn; 8 LOlIgfhorpe; 9-10 Oberslimm); 11- /4
collels (11-12 Ilod Ilil/; 13 Dongsleflm; 14 Rileingiinheim).
vived. T hese showed how the tang was rive ted t hrough a pyram idal expansion of the
shaft. Many other exam ples of the shanks have been fou nd, often bent through usc.
Pi/mil heads are common fin ds on Roman mil itary sitcs, although somet imes confused
with drill bits and n::ails. The shafts mUSt have been carved down from the maximum di-
ameter of the pole (thc broadest point of t he expansion). Examples of early Imperial
shanks arc known from Augsburg-Oberhause n, Hod Hill, and Dangsteuen, whilst 001-
lets (whic h fined on tOp of the pyramidal expansion) have bee n found at tht: last tWO
76 ROIIIII" Military E'l"iplflf'lll

and 31 Kalkricsc. The facllhat thcpillllll may normally have had a shoe (or butl) is dem-
onstrated on Canceller;a Relief A (J.lg. Z), where one is clearly illusH3red. The same
rdief shows how the handgrip of the pi/lim shaft was hound at the point of bahrncc.
Headless (probably dJ1l1agcd) pi/(I continue (() he n,:-uScd and socketed pda remained
in usc in the 1st century :\lJ. Some ea rl y Augustan pi/fI, from the wmchrowt:rs ~H
J'ilzbach and Schanis, now associ:ltcd with the Alpine campaign of 15 Be, had sin-
gle-barbed heads and these Jl\;ly be rc:sidu31 Hcpubli c:rn wcapons.~
Cancel leria Relief A has also led to the notion th:1t a weighted pillm, was int roduced
during the latter part of this period, si nce:: it depicts a bulbous addition (Q the weapon,
just below the pyramidal expansion and above thc handgrip, decorated with an eaglc
motif. A si milar reature is app:lrent onpikl on thc Adamdisi monument (Fig. 53) and
possibly on the tombstone ore. Castricius Victor (r·ig. 3b). Such a weight would thco-
retically give additiomll penetr:nive power, wh il st limiting Ihe range. WeighT was part
of the key to the success of thepilllll!: once it had caused the weapon to penelfa[(; a tar-
ge t, it hdped to bend the shank so that the weapon was difficult to estraCI ami could
not be returned, although it cou ld later be straightened ou t quirc easily in a workshop.
Performance of the pi/11m m:l}' have been furthe r enhanced by thc usc of a throwing
stmp (1IIIIm/III11). apparently shown on the tombstonc ofFlavoleius Cordus (Fig. ISO).s

Spmrs (Fig. 38)

The spear is ubiquitous in llny period and notoriously diffic ult ro classify. Some faclOrs,
such as the length of sh:lfr. arc not normally preserved in Ihe archaeological record , so
hypotheses tend to be dependent upon analysis of Ihe head form and size, a proce.~s
that is dubious to say the least. Depictional evidence is al so unrel iable in this fidd,
both from the point of view of size (the weapon was. genera lly speaking, scaled to fit
within the frame of the work) and sh:lpe of the head (usuall y nondescript). The spear
can be categorized as hllVing twO extremes of funCtion: first it can be a thrusl ing
weapon, used in hand-to-hand combat; or it can be a mi ssile, t hrown at an enemy from
:1 distance. Howe\'er, there is a third category which CO\'crs all t hosc spears Ihat could
be used for Ixuh purposes (j,ux/rt'lllis, even the slenderest ofja vclins might be used as a
thrusting s~ar and the longest of spears as a missile). so we can on ly hope 10 divine
broad rules about the apparent perceived purpose or a weapon. One usefu l feature indi-
ca ting function might be diamctcr of the shaft, rather than the shape of the he:ld. b
The spear consisted of a forged iron head, nearly always socketed :It this period, a
wooden shaft (usually of ash or hazel, woods with the right qU3l ities ofstrengrh and
flex ibility), and an iron butt. Whe n considering s~:lrhcad s , th e tcrm 'leaf-shaped ' is
commonly found, but therc .Ire;: ohvious problems wit h thi s tcrmi nology: which leaf
shape arc we talking about. pinn:Lte or lanceolate? ' ('hose d e tecting the onse t of circu-
la rity in this search for a descri pt i\<e language may well be tempted 10 give up at this
point! A more sensible solution lies in that offered by Barke r. and followed by Densem,
whereby the ratio between tht: length of the spear blade ,and it s broadest point is take n
as the sign ificant attribut c. The distan(~e from the t ip of the blade to rhis broadest
point is termed thc 'length of t:ntry' 'l'h us a low-s houldered blade would be one where
rhe broadest part was nearer the socket than the tip, mid-shouldered where il lay
 From Auguslus 10 /lilt/film 77

-~.i' - -~. -
, - . 0
- -0

','

o
"

~ ____~=======-____~3~m

Figurl' 38: Early Pfinripolf. speorhl'flt/sfmt/ bullS. 1-4, /limit/on Hill; 5-6, 14-15 Hotl lJill; 7-9
Long/harpe; 10, /7-24 Rhl'ingollhrim; 11-12 Ner.:Jsll'fld; 16 Corbritlgl'.

about half-way along. and so on. In the end, one has (Q accept that t hert: is noone satis-
facrory way of ca tegorizing Roman spearheads. 7
Equally fraught is the question of te rminology. The curre ncy of ancien t terms like
hllSlfI, klllel'o, r;dUlum, and spiculum, le t alone t he more general u/o or missilis, is virtually
impossible (Q untangle, and Roman writt:rs seem to have used them interchangeably
all tOO often . In fact, it is somet imes tempting to vicw all of these as synonymous, but
 78 RO""III Mili/ory F.qllipmnlf

Ihis is perhaps taking tOO pessimist ic a view of the mauer. T hckman, for example, was
a javelin, and in that context we may recall the ill-fated IUf/ail Lum'kmt'O. 'r he Elde r
Pliny wrote a treatise on throwing javelins from horseback and th is, together with
Lucullus' /rll/Cf'fl, may have been symptomat ic of:lIl ari.~tocratic imereS[ in hunting and
mounted combat. T he complex ity of such tcrminolob'Y is further ind icated hya docu -
ment from Carlisle which records fill/rial' pugf/lIlOrifll' or 'batllc javclins,.8
Auxiliary infantry are shown on 1st cenrury tombswncs carrying morc than one
spea r (Hg. 150c-d), which sugges ts thaI at least oncofrhcsc was intended fo r usc as a
missile. T he running auxi liary (if that is indeed what he is) on a Mainz colum n base
( Fig. Sa) is wield ing one spea r and carrying tWO morc behind his shield. Josephus
stated t ha t cavalrymen were equipped with a spear and had se\'erall igh te r javelins in a
qu iver. The tombslOnes of cavalrymen often show their mlorl,s or scmmrs holding
spare missiles, and in at leasl one case a bu ndle or quiver is shown. The provision of
mon: than one missile is clearly suggest ive of the ab ility to skirmish, although thi s
need not preclude either aux iliary infantry or cava lry from be ing used in more direct
fighting.9

Sm'ordf (Figs. 39-4!)

Cont rary to popular belief. Ihe lerm 'gltldiIlS' can mean an y sword and is certainly nOI
specific 10 short weapons. The infanlrysword unde rwent an important metamorphosis
some time aftcr the middle of rhe 1st centul)' AI). T he familiar long-pointed.
raper-bladed wcapon oflhe Ikpublie, Iheso-calledglndills llisptlllirnsis (which survived
as the '1\1ainz' type). was phased out in favour of a parallel-edged, short pointed re-
placement (thc ' Pompe ii' type). T hese lWO swords are, it has been suggested,
symptomatic of a change in the style of Homan fi ghting. Examples of the l'vlainz type
sword (so-cal led because so many examples come from the Rhine at l\him.) and its as-
sociated scabbard fitrings arc found throughout the first half of the century and it was
clearl y Sfi ll in use al t he lime of rhe invasion of Britain in AD 43. Plotting the distribu-
tion of such find s can give us some idea of how long ir persisted in use in Ilri tain and
Ihe re does not appear 10 be much ind ication of its continuat ion into the Flavian pe-
riod. The blades (excluding tang) vary berween 400 mm and 550 mm in length and
blade wid ths taper from somelhing li ke 54-75 mm 10 48-60 mm, with the lenglh of
point varying betwee n 96 and 200 mm. T he handle assembl y consisted of a ha ndguard,
an octagonal-sect ioned handgrip usually madc from H cow longbone, and then a pom-
mel of slightly flattened ovoid appearance. The pomme l and handguard werc often
made of wood, as cxamples from Vindonissa show, bur cou ld also be of bone or ivory.
These pieces were held onto the tang by a copper-alloy rivet . The sword from
Rhei ngtinheim had a silver plaled wooden handle and the rivct originally JX)ssesscd a
'small ring from a bronze chain', recalling a glad iator relicffrom Rome where t he sword
is suspended from the gladi::nOT's wrisl by a cord or chain. HI
Scholars differ over Ihe function of the twO types of bladc . Many of the Mainz Iype
swo rd .~ had waisted blades and one wonders ifthcy were de liberately made th is way (and
if so, why?) or whet her they had been worn down by repeated sharpening. Vegetius'
comment about the Romans scorn ing anybody who cut, rather than stabbed, with the
 From Auguslus 10 Hadriafl 79

-= O
~=====- ______~2~m

Figure 39: £tlrly Principou reords. / RileingiiflMim; 2, 4 Nreslmd; 3 Hod Hi//,' 5 Come/on; 6
Rnllf>:eil.

sword is too vague to be of much use, and Polybios certainly indicates that the glodius
Hisponiroris could be used for chopping as well as stabbing. So was (he change to the Pom-
peii type made in orde r to provide a sword equally well adapted tostabbingor chopping?!1
80 ROIll{ffl !l liliflll]F.ljuip1llf711

( C§j[J
~
Figurr 40: F,fI"~Y Pr;mip(J/f .words - full/til,. Iwrmblax/'s. I lVo(ldm POlf/",rI (IIindon/wl); 2{/-('
IJOllt' "afir/blTips (tll-onr/on; b /JllIIg>l(,!!I'fl; r R/u'illgonhl'illlj: 3a-1J Hlflltlgl/unlpfaff'S (a DllflKSlflfl'fl;
II &dm); 4-7 nflllrlgllflf"{is (4, 7 coOt!, Jlillt!o"i~<;o; 5--6 bollI', R/II'ingiinhr;m).

' I'he pa rJ[]cJ-edgcd Pompeii type (wit h blade Icnglhs between 420 and 500 mm and
widths bclWcc n 42 and 55 mm) was named after four examples found at Pompeii with
the well-known 1f'1111illllsalluqfft'lIIofA]) 79 (now supple mented by a fifth sword, carried
hy the Hercula neum 'soldier'), Examples of the wc.tpon and its scabbard-fittings give
a rathcrdiffercnt d istrib ution bycornparison with the t\'binz-typc sword and one piece
of scabbard from Vcrulam iurn is d'lIcd to before [he Boudiean revolt (AD 60/ 1), possi-
bly [he earliest archaeological manifestation of this we3lXln. Finds of Pompeii -type
5 From Augustus to Hot/riotl 81

~ ______ ~~===- ____ ~3~m

Figure 41: Em/y Prillriptlte .rn::ort/s - sheaths. I River ljublj(lIIiCII; 2 Rhine at Maim; 3 AI(lillz
(,Sr.:::ort/ of Tiberills'); 4 Villt/Olli.utl; 5 Rhille at Mainz.

scabbard -fittings fro m Waddon I-l ill seem to belong to some time before AD 64, al-
though t he ea rlier term ina l d:ne for Hod H ill (which has also produced Pompei i-type
fitt ings) has been questioned. T he handle assemblies diffe r markedly from t hose of
the Mainz-type sword , with the handguard now more pronounced and t he pommel re-
sembl ing a nattened sphere. II
T here was a variety of types of scabbard fo r Ihese tWO swords and these seem to
have had a broadly chronological development . T he first Mainz-typc sheath employed
a filigree network retaining U-sectioned bind ing. A near-complete example from the
Hi vcr Ljubljan ica can be dated by com parison with more fragmentary pieces from
better-dated contexts, such as Magdalensbe rg, the Comacchio shipwreck, and
H2 ROlJ/(l1Illlililtiry Equip"''''1f

K;llkricst (the last also producing an impressin: silver example with an embedded in-
r:lgl io).Thc second form wa.~ notable for its usc of elaborate openwork fittings al the
mouth :lnd ch;Jpe. Complete examples have comt: from rivers (the Weser at Bremen
:lIld the Rhine at i\ iai nz.), hUI it is the fragments of sheaths Wllich provide the dating
evidence. A cho.tpt: from DangsrcI (en must have bet:n dcposiwu around 15 Be, but tlw
form seems w h:JVC continued until the Chludian period. many pieces of th is kind of
ShC:Hh coming from the .\ l3gdalcnsbcrg (aban doned r: ,\D 45). The third variant is best
represented by the so-c:Jllcd Sword of Ti beri us. whcrc openwork decoration has been
superseded by embossed mar ifs. in this case a propaganda scene. IT.lgmcnts of the sus-
pension bands. decorated with a laurel wreath motif. ha\'c come from Colchester :lnd
Chichester. indicat ing thc comi nuation of this type imo thc "Os, T he fourth type is al-
most totally decorated with embossed plates (again with a propaganda theme ).
examples coming from the Thames at Fulham. Strasbourg. \\~esbaden, and
Valkcnbu rg. A l'omplete example from Vindon issa belongs to a phase that datt:s bt:-
tween AD 45 and 69 .1.1
Apart from the shape ,md forms of decoration t:mployed, one of the distinctivt: char-
ac teristics of tht: Mainz-type she:llh was rhe usc of gutte ring. V-sha ped copper-alloy
(:lIld some t imes iron ) bind ing along the edges TO prevent damage from the sword blade
duringsheathingor unsht::llhing, All three types appt:ar 10 ha\'c incorporated a wooden
lining. tojudge from t he organic remains sometimt:s found wilhin them,l~
Pompeii-type sheaths usua lly lacked gUllering. having decorated locket pl:nes and
chapes attached to a leather-cO\'e red wood body. T he locket is usually tinned or sil-
vered and decorated with a combination of puneht:d-out shapes and incised detail. the
former presumably designed to contrast the colour of the underlying sheath with the
whi te meta l. An ornate p:l1metw was fixed JUSt abow the chape, and thc bonom of the
locket and chape p lates were similarly adorned with palmettes at the side. Some exam-
ples had Huds on the faec of the sheath, A Pom pt:ii-type sword and sheath is shown on
a relief from Pula. l ~
Of cou rse. thesc were nor the only rypes of sword in usc by the Homan army in ollr
period. A longer sword (ofren called the spa/ha) was used by the cavalry. presumably
derived from Cel t ic wcapons, Fewe rexam ples oftht:se swords have sllf"h'ed. although
a piece from RO[[\\'t:il (L. 7680101. \\( JJmm) and at Icast two from Newstead ( L. 622
and 635mm, \V. 30-350101 each) seem to belong in this cklss, The longer sword was a
prerequisite for a clvalryman to operate against infanrry, 'b
In Bri tain , another form of sword that is n:presented amongst the archaeologica l
finds is the 'native' ty pe, Remains from these weapons have come from such sites as
Hod and Waddon H ills. Roccliffc. NewsICad, and Camelon. Whilst much about tht:m
reflec ts the influt:nl'e of Roman shorr sword design. rhey st ill incorporate fearurt:s rhat
mark their La Tt:nt: aneest!)', ' J'heycerrai nly seem to show that some troops in Roman
service were using their own \\'eapons as late as the Flavian period, li
Centurions ( I-"ig. 52) and some srandard-bearers wore their swords on tht:ir left
hand sid e, other tTOOpS on the ir right. T he quest ion of sword suspension is vexed. but
certain ly seems to have srarred with the sword on one belt and the dagger on another
(an arrangement still respected by t he I-I erculant:um ·soldier'). There may havt: becn
more than one way in which the sword was :tttachcd 10 the belt. but a sword and
5 From Augustus to /Jar/Til", 83

scabbard found at Vindonissa show howa double-looped frog oou ld be used, apparently
tied to the belt. The advent of the si ngle belt may have necessitated the adoption ofa
baldric (no exampks of double belts with a baldric arc shown on the Rhineland tomb-
stones), but we cannOt be certain of whether only two suspension rings, three, or even
all four were employed . The baldric did not requ ire a fastener of any kind, since it
could simply be sl ipped over the head and shou lder, but attempts to ident ify cavalry
harness fasteners as baldric fiuings persist, despite the obvious differences in decora-
tion between infantry and cavalry equipment. ls

Daggers (Figs. 42-5)

Augustan daggers have been found at Dangstetten, Obcraden, the Titelberg,

Kalkriese, and Augsburg-Oberhausen. Whilst some st ill have the round pommels of Re-
publican daggers. others now have a flat-topped vers ion with rivets, and inlaid
decoration occurs for t he first time amongst the handl es from Obe raden. Flavolc ius
Cordus has a dagger sheath on his graves lOne similar to examp les from 'litdbcrg and
Exeter, with guttering and cross bind ing, and similar guttering came from Haltem and
this may be a survival of t he Republ ican form of scabbard. By the ' liberio-Claudian pe-
riod, t he dagger had become the complementary sidearm to t he sword and is shown on
tombstones, often with a scabbard which has t hree fictds of decoration. The blade and
tang were fo rged in one piece and the tWO halves of the handle riveted in place,
sandwiching an organic layer (horn or bone) on either side of the tang. The handle had
an in verted T shape, with a swe lling halfway up its length and another as a pommel at
the top.19
For the purposes of classification, two types of tang and three types of blade have so
far been recognised. 'rhe first type of tang, with examples from Dangstetten,
Oberaden, Hod H ill, and ~hinz, is flat and riveted to the blade, characteristically with
twO rivets through the pommel, one through the central expansion, and two or more
th rough the handguard. \Vith the second type, the rod rang (from Vindonissa,
Gcl ligaer, and Ri Gtissen), the rivels do not actually pass th rough t he blade or tang;
many of Ihese daggers arc eit he r found wit hout handles or wit h replacement wooden
ones fitted. The Type A blade (Alleriot, ~h i nz, Hod Hill ) is broad wi th a simple
midrib, whilst Type B (Vindonissa, Leeuwen) has deep grooves on either side of the
midrib, a pronounced waist, and a long tapering poinL ' r)'pe C dagger blades
( Kingsholm , Gelligacr) arc much narrower than either of [he ot he r two vari ants. and
arc also comparatively straight-edged. Type A blades have the flat tang, Type B either
type, and Type C the rod tang. As Scotl has pointed OUl, there wou ld seem [0 be a chro-
nological progression, with Type B being a transi[ional type, bu t this is virtually
impossible to demonstrate from the limited chronological informat ion associated with
these weapons.!O
Dagger sheat hs were frequenrly elaborately decorated wit h me tal or enamel inlay
and a separate system of c1assificalion exists for these, alt hough it should be stressed
that th is type of sheath was not the only kind in use (see below). There arc two basic
forms of the inlaid sheath, Types A and B. Type A (Aile riot, I-Iod Hill , Auerberg,
Obcrammergau) was made of two plates of iron joined at t he edges and lined with
84 RfJlIlllll !Ilili!ary £rllliplllf'IIl

_ _ _ _.:::
3O<m

Fig/f/~42: EmIr Prjllrip(I/I'r/flf[f!.I'rs. I OIH'rtJdl'll: 2 IJrlllgslf'IIt'II:.J Rifi,iSSl'II; 4JllIi"z-Wrisl'II(lII: 5

.I /aim.: 6 Killl!sltolll/: i Rflrillllli: 8.I/"'mlll/.
S From AUbfUstus to Hot/rian 85

Figure 43: Early Prindpott't/oggers. / Diagrammatic stcfiOfl of hal/t/Ie; 2o-d suspension loops (a
Dangstetfm; b Cheslfr; c Kemptm; t! Velsen); 3schematKcross-scaion ofblot/caNt/ sht'ath (/Josef).

wood, the front plate being inlaid with brass, si lver, niello, orenamel. T he four suspen-
sion rings we re usually free TO move, attached TO the sheath by line copper-alloy loops.
'lype B sheaths (Vindonissa, Loughor, Ri Btisse n) were made of organic materials
(probably leather and wood) wit h a ncar-flat decorated iron plate attached to the ftont,
with twO lugs on either side through wh ich the rivets secu ri ng the suspension loops
passed . These suspension loops were hinged to the sheath and were elaboratcly
fo rmed by bending rhe metal components. An exa mpl e from Ve1sen had iron loops as
t he upper pair and sil ver as the lower, all of which we re const ruc ted in the samc way, al-
t hough from di ffe rent metals. Type 13 sheaths were inlaid wit h silver and not brass. Z!
The decorative designs employed were, with only a few exceptions, usually placed
wit hin four zones and motifs included roscttes, temples, palmettes and various geo-
metric e1emenrs. u
Apart from the inlaid sheaths, the re were embossed examples, such as the piece
from Leeuwen, and comp letely undecorated sheaths from Mainz, Basel, Oberaden,
Dangstenen, and Carnuntum. T he study of daggers and their scabba rds is complex,
but no aspect of it is particularly helpful in tel ling us what the weapon was used for.
Wit h blade lengths of between 250 and 350 mm, it was c1earlya formidable weapon to
have as a back-up shou ld the sword be lost or damaged and we need not view it solely as
a ' boy-scout' knife used for eating meals or wh ittling wood. Dagge rs, like the shorr
sword , wefe used by both legionary and auxil iary infantry, a fact that is evident from
the tombstone evidence. However, t hey also seem to have been owned by some caval-
rymen. A papyrus records that L. Caecilius Secundus, an eques of the ala Paul/if/i,
borrowed money from an auxiliary in fantryman, and one of the objects he used as secu-
fity fOf the loan was 'a silver dagger sheath with ivory inlay' , the document being dated
August 25t h AD 27.Z3
It is commonly supposed that decorated sheaths wen: personal pu rchases replacing
'standard issue' irems, but the rarity of such plain pieces from the archaeological
 r
86 ROil/till Mili/ary l';qlli/!lIInl!

Figllr" 44: Early Prillripaff'r/{Igj!,i'n' - shnllhs. I Tildlxrg; 2 Rili", {II Alaillz; 3 /)/lJ/(l/ol(/var; 4
AI/;,.io!: 5 Hod Hi/I; 6 Rijtissm; 7 Villt/(Hlisst/; 8 Le('fl~·fII.
 From Augustus to /fadrian 87

T
j
,, '

Figure 4.5: Reconstruction of tne Velsen dagger and belt fittings (by Dr 1. Morel).

record, together wit h the Roman soldiers' evident taste for decorated equipmenr, sug-
gest t hat t his view may be groundless. The undecorated sheaths are of Type A and
dated ones come from early Pri ncipate contexts, so it is feasible , but by no means cer-
tain, t hat most daggt: r scabbards of the mid 1st century were undeeorated.!4
A thoroughly ht:terodox fo rm of dagger was found in the Mehrum burial, and is as-
sumed to havt: belonged to a Germanic auxi liary in Roman serviec. l 5
88

Contrary fO acccp rcd helier, rhe &lggcr cont inued in usc infO the 2nd ct:ntury and
beyond (Chapter 7), an CX:1111plc coming from Bucium;, and one is shown on the tomb·
STOne of C as tric ills Victor at Aquincurn . Decorated sheaths n.;m;Jincd in usc into the
Flavian jJcriod, with an c":lll1pk from Corbridge probably dating co ;Jfter AI) HS.:"

/10fJ:}S{IIIr/ SliNgs (hg. 46)

Finds of arrowheads, p:micularly the trilobate ranged variety. illustrate the usc of ar·
chery hy t he Romans in this pcriod. Fragmen tary bone or antler laths dcs i ~ncd to
stiffen the ends (cars) of composite bows a f C known from Obcradcn :md Dangs[ctlcn
(August:lIl), Vclscn (Ckludian). Waddon Hill (Ncroni:m). Ri Bt isscn (btc
Ncronian/carlv F1avi:m). :md \~ndolanda (late FI :lVian). Wooden :mow shafts have
heen recovered from \~ndonissa :md painted ones art known from Masada.!J
Elliptical pieces of 1e:l1hcr found at Mdandra Castle and Vindolanda have heen
idcntified as sling-pouches. Slingshor arc also sometimcs found, made of eby or lead.
l)ramatic cvidence from Vdsen sccms to show soldiers hurriedly using their thumbs 10
form sand moulds for lead slingshot, in order to ttnd off an attack. Soldiers were taught
bmh archery and slinging as a matter of cou r.~e during their training. presumably as it
useful skill to keep in reservc, hut specialists in these II'eapons (panil-ularly the bow)
seem 10 have been spn'::ld amongst the army when in g:lTrison. rather than kept 10-
ge ther in one p1:Jce. !~

Ani/k/}' (Fig(. 47-8)

'1'11e two main types of artillery in usc by the Roman ;lrmy in the 1st century AU werc
st ill the slOnc thrower (/Nllli.'/(I) and bolt shooter (mll/p"IIII). Vegetius stated that each
legion had ten slOne-throwers and 55 bolt-shooters. Some Stone throwers eould be
\'cry large. :IS is shown by :In incident from the civil warof I\D 69, rqxmed by"Elcitus.
T he eomponellls of IOrsion ;m il lel)' arc occasionally found on sites of rhis period. such
as:J washcr from Elginhaugh or the moulds for casting w:lshers from rhe Auerberg. A
shidd from the front oflhe frarm; of a bolt-shooter. complete with a consul:Jrdate of I\ll
4S. was found ncar the site of the battle ofCremona, ;llong with a less-complt:tt second
esamplt:. and washers prohal)ly belonging to both weapons. N
Thi s type is depicted on the sidc of the Domiti;tni c funerary altar of Vedtnnius
Moderatus in Hom c with torsion arms, sinew coils, decorated shield and the same
small open ing for thc missilt.:. Long bolts were sho t from these machines. whereas ,1
nell' form. firsl scen on Trajan's Column, shot shorter, (lu:trrci-like project iles. Thi s had
:t wider. lower frame of iron components, an open front and an arched. horizontal strut
(l:fIIllrrioll) wh ich assisted aiming, especially at elevation. As seen on the Column. il
could be mounted on a Iwo-whedcd cart for battldidd mobility. and became known as
the ·mr mballisftt'. This holt -shoolingartillerycontinued right through to tht: 1...:l.Ie no-
man period , as frame and washer find s demonstrate. shooting the type ofw()oden holt
fou nd prt:ser.·cd at Dura- Europos (sec Chaplers 7 :lnd 8), :md appearing in BY-lanti nc
illustrated trealises as thed,timbal/islf"({, A diminutive hoh-shooter frame from Xal1ten
S FrONl Augustus to Had,ian 89

-(.
~6
~ ~

~ ~9 .~, 10

~~ . ~

Figure 46: Early PriflciptItc archn)' and slinging equipNlt'flt. 1-3 BOlle (CarmmtulfI); 4 bone
(lVaddon Hill); Siron (f)rlflgstel/et/); 6-li iron (CartlllfltulfI); 9 iron (Hod Hill); 10-12
iron(Camuntum); 13-17 &' 19 cloy shot (PfiJrring); 181ealher sling pOlich (Vindolaf/t/a).

may represent a hand-held nUlfIuhallista, a form wel l-attested in the Late Roman period
and perhaps more widely used earl ier than has hitherto been appreciated. JO
We know from Josephus that stOne shot were used by Roman artillel)' in the siege of
Jerusalem, and examples of these have been found around the city and at Masada
(where they were probably mostly used in an anti-personnel capacity). However, the
most common find associated with artillery is the so-called catapult (or hallista)
bolt-head, also an ami-personnel weapon . 'rh ese were square-sectioned and socketed,
and one found at Dura-Europos, on a wooden shaft with flights , confirms the ident ifi-
cation. The most famous 'art illel)" projectile head from Britain, found lodged between
the vertebrae of a burial at l\.hiden Castle, not only came from a pre-Roman context,
but is of an inappropriate type for Roman catapu lt projectiles."
By comparison with their Republican predecessors, bolt-heads of the early
Prineipate had much longer heads.
 r
90 &1111111 .lIilillll'] Eq"ip"''''!

, ~ ,

• 0 •• 0
• 0
~ ~
~
• 0 • C
~ ~- '-" ~

Figur, 47: F.lII~I' Prin("ip(Jff' flnill,,]'. I Cali/pillt jrfl!"f' snirM (errll/O"tl): Z(/-(" r,::as/II'n
(Cmt/Ofltf); 311-/ fflltfPfllr bolrs (fI, d Hod Hill; b Kingslto/m; f Corbritlgf; f MlddOff lIill, I
Augsbllrg-Obf'r"IIIISI'tI).
 From Augus/us /0 Hadridn 91

Figure 48: E.(Jr/y Principa/e reliefs depicting artillery. / Monumen/ of Vedenllius Modem/lis
(Rome); 21'rajoll's CO/limn Scene LXVI.

Armour
ShieM (figs. 49-S0)

A relief on t he mausoleum ofMunatius Pl ancus at Gaeta shows that the curved rectan-
gu lar shield was already in usc by e. 10 Be. An (l{/locu/io coin of the emperor Gaius shows
soldi e rs of the Praetorian Guard equipped with it (Fig. 9,1), so it was obviously wide-
spread wel l before the invasion of l3ritain inAD 43. However, this form, so familiar from
Trajan's Colum n, was by no means the only type of legionary sh ield. Oval sh ields arc
shown on the tombstones of Fl avole ius Cordus of legio XlIII Gemina (Fig. 150a) from
Mainz (probably bdore AD 43) and C. Castricius Victor of legio II Adiu/rix (Fig. 3b).
There are p roblems in identifying intermed iate shapes due to the Romans' difficulty
in portraying perspective, but a Praetorian carrying a sh ield with curved sides and a
stra igh t top is depicted on a T rajanic rel ief from Pozzuoli. The curved rectangular
sh ield seems to have been exclusive to Praetorians and legionaries; no representation
accompanied by a diagnostic inscription shows an auxiliary eq uip ped with one ..12
Auxiliaries, both foot and mounted, used flat sh ields that might be rectangular, oval,
or hexagonal. The re lief of Annaius Daverzus from Bingen (Fig. 1S0d) has a large, flat,
recta ngular shield sculpted in low relief, as does Licaius at Wiesbaden. Suc h a flat
sh ie ld board was found at Doncaster. Oval sh ields are often associated wit h auxiliaries
(as at Adamciisi, or on the Mainz colum n base) and leather covers of t his shape have
been found. 'rhe caval ryma n Vonatorix from Bonn has a hexagonal shield, as do several
other riders.JJ
Standard bearers and some other specialists had small round shields t hat cou ld be
tucked under the arm, depicted on T rajan's Column, Cancellt: ri a Relief A. and the
Pozzuoli monument, whilst a leat her cover for such a sh ie ld has bee n identified at
Castleford from a Flavian context."'"