War in History

http://wih.sagepub.com Display in Roman Warfare: The Appearance of Armies and Individuals on the Battlefield
Kate Gilliver War In History 2007; 14; 1 DOI: 10.1177/0968344507071038 The online version of this article can be found at: http://wih.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/1

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for War in History can be found at: Email Alerts: http://wih.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://wih.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare: The Appearance of Armies and Individuals on the Battleeld1
Kate Gilliver
The paper discusses the appearance of Roman armies in battle and the contribution of arms and equipment to intimidating displays in the spectacle of pitched battle. After arguing for similarity of equipment in the Roman army but not uniformity, the paper considers the personalization of equipment by soldiers as a means of self-advertisement and individual visibility in battle to ensure reward for courageous actions. This behaviour is linked to the Roman armys origins in the warrior society of early Rome. The paper concludes with a discussion of the signicance of wearing military decorations in battle, contra Maxelds argument (The Military Decorations of the Roman Imperial Army, 1981) that soldiers did not wear decorations in battle.

he study of Roman armies experiences in combat has been undertaken seriously only during the last decade or so, brought about largely through the impetus of Keegans seminal The Face of Battle and the application of his approach by Hanson to the ancient Greek world.2 It was not until the mid-1990s that Roman warfare was subjected to the same methodological approach which has since been employed in the study of individual campaigns and battles, allowing historians a more holistic, and more visceral, understanding of Roman battle than had been available through previous work. The latter had tended to concentrate almost exclusively on the deployment and tactical manoeuvring of armies on the battleeld, and the tactics and grand strategies of individual generals.3 This change in approach has
1

2 3

This paper has been presented to research seminars at Cardiff University and the University of Manchester; I am grateful to colleagues for their responses to the paper and suggestions for improvement, in particular to Louis Rawlings for his insights, and for his advice on Gallic military display. J. Keegan, The Face of Battle (London, 1976); V.D. Hanson, The Western Way of War (London, 1989). D. Lee, Morale and the Roman Experience of Battle, in A. Lloyd, ed., Battle in Antiquity (Swansea, 1996), pp. 199218; A.K. Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War (Oxford, 1997), The Punic Wars (London, 2001), Cannae (London, 2001); G. Daly, Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War (London, 2002).

War in History 2007 14 (1) 121 10.1177/0968344507071038 2007 SAGE Publications Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Kate Gilliver

beneted considerably from the study of Roman military equipment which has done much to elucidate not only the nature of Roman battle and the effectiveness of Roman soldiers in battle, but also the social signicance of various pieces of equipment and their effect on morale, though largely outside combat situations.4 From sculptural evidence we know much about how Roman soldiers were dressed for combat or peacetime activities, or at least how they or contemporary Roman society expected them to appear in an idealized fashion. However, little work has been undertaken on the physical appearance and physical display of Roman armies and soldiers in battle. Such a study reveals much about the nature of Roman society and soldiers, as well as Roman understanding of battle, leadership, and morale. The Roman state was very aware of the importance of military exhibition, the most famous and lavish example of which was the triumphal procession of a successful imperator through the streets of Rome, accompanied by spoils of war, enemy prisoners, and the bawdy chants of the generals soldiers.5 Other activities associated with triumphs included not only tableaux illustrating the defeat of the enemy, but even the reenactment of engagements from the campaign (Suetonius, Claudius 21). Aside from displays associated with triumphs, large-scale public entertainments in the imperial period might include re-enactments of naval battles (Suetonius, Augustus 43; Nero 12; Titus 7), but these involved gladiators rather than soldiers. Soldiers went on public display in the Roman equivalent of the military tattoo at which the formation and deployment of the testudo seem to have been a popular item (Livy 44.8; Dio 49.30), while drills on the numerous parade grounds associated with forts and fortresses probably also included an element of public display (Arrian, Periplus 3, 10); certainly the hippika gymnasia of the imperial period, though based on cavalry exercises and intended partly to hone skills in formation riding and throwing weapons, included a signicant element of exhibitionism.6 The cavalrymen, dressed up in highly decorative equipment that was clearly not intended to withstand the rigours of combat but designed to attract the attention of spectators, undertook a complex series of high-speed manoeuvres on a parade ground in front of a tribunal (Arrian, Tactica 34).7 But in addition to public display of
4

5 6

J.N.C. Coulston, Armed and Belted Men: The Soldiery in Imperial Rome, in J. Coulston and H. Dodge, eds, Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City (Oxford, 2000), pp. 76118; M.C. Bishop, On Parade: Status, Display and Morale in the Roman Army, in H. Vetters and M. Kandler, eds, Der rmische Limes in sterreich, 36: Akten des 14. Internationalen Limeskongresses 1986 in Carnuntum (Vienna, 1990), pp. 2130; J.-M. Carri, The Soldier, in A. Giardina, ed., The Romans (Chicago, 1993), pp. 10037. Suetonius, Caesar 49, 51; H.S. Versnel, Triumphus (Leiden, 1970), p. 95. M.C. Bishop notes the link between the displays and cavalry tactics, but that the exercises involved a strong element of display (Bishop, On Parade, p. 25). See also A. Hyland, Training the Roman Cavalry (Stroud, 1993). Arrians description makes it clear that the gear used in the displays was not intended for use in battle, explaining that it was lighter and provided less protection than battle equipment (Tactica 34.35). Such equipment is best regarded as sports equipment rather than parade equipment.

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare

Romes military strength and skill, and the training value of such exercises, they probably also served to encourage recruitment, and certainly played an important part in maintaining unit morale, especially in the regular periods of peace and comparative inactivity experienced by armies in the principate. Many of these displays, however, were staged largely for the benet of a civilian public, and we hear far less in our sources about the exhibition of armies on the battleeld: the display of entire armies and their posturing; how and why individuals sought to display themselves and assert their individualism within the institution of the Roman army. These are the subjects of this paper.

I. Homogenization, Not Uniformity

In spite of the image of uniformity propagated by public monuments in Rome such as Trajans Column, military uniforms, with all members of a unit assigned identical basic equipment and clothing, were not a feature of armies in the Roman world. Roman legionaries, for example, did not in reality appear as the identical gures kitted out with large rectangular shields, short stabbing sword, and segmented armour that are sculpted on Trajans Column, as can be seen from the huge variety of equipment depicted in private funerary sculpture. Even in the ancient world, however, there were similarities, sometimes to quite strong degrees, in the way soldiers were armed and equipped, if only for the obvious reason that similarity of equipment was essential for the effective functioning of units in battle. In spite of this, there is likely to have been considerable variation in the style and details of arms and armour. In the early to middle republic, citizens serving in legions usually equipped themselves at their own expense, the expected arms and armour varying in accordance with the citizens wealth and therefore his position in the centurial system that formed the basis of Romes voting and military systems. However, the descriptions of this political and military hierarchy provided by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (4.1618) and Livy (1.43) are idealistic and suggest a rigidity of organization that almost certainly never existed in reality. In particular, some of the differences in the equipment supposedly worn by the different classes of heavy infantrymen are so minor as to be virtually meaningless the only difference between infantry of the second and third classes in Dionysius system is that the former wear greaves while the latter do not and much of these descriptions is likely to have been antiquarian invention.8 In his description of the mid-republican legion, organized into three differently equipped lines of maniples, Polybius claims that legionaries with the highest property qualication of 10 000 drachmas armed themselves with a mail coat, whereas those below that rating wore a bronze
8

See T. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome (London, 1995), pp. 17981, for a discussion of some of the problems in interpretation of these passages of Dionysius and Livy.
War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Kate Gilliver

breastplate or pectoral a span square (c.23 cm). However, given the nature of legionary combat, anyone who could afford it, or who managed to capture one, probably wore a mail shirt in preference to a bronze pectoral. Equipment might be purchased, despoiled from the enemy dead, or handed down within families. Thus although the hastati, principes, and triarii of the manipular legion were all equipped with helmet, shield, sword, and some kind of armour, there was almost certainly a vast amount of variation in the style and quality of equipment, and therefore in the appearance of a Roman legion. Nonetheless, just as the different nationalities drawn into the Carthaginian armies of the Second Punic War could be recognized by their own particular types of equipment or the colours of their dress (Polybius 3.114; Livy 30.33), a legion must have had a distinctively Roman quality to its appearance. Once the Roman state began equipping soldiers, either at the states expense or through deducting the cost from soldiers pay, greater similarity of equipment is likely to have resulted. Indeed, in addition to other considerations such as tactical change, state provision of equipment may have encouraged the abandonment of the four differently armed lines of the manipular legion and the establishment of the cohortal legion with all legionaries similarly equipped as heavy infantry. However, even when the state was providing equipment widely, continued variation in production should be expected. State-run arms factories seem to have been introduced in the late Roman Empire, and before then military equipment was probably produced by individual craftsmen and small workshops and, once units became permanent under Augustus, by specialists within legions themselves.9 Production of equipment by smallscale manufacturers and private ownership of equipment would have encouraged variation in design and decoration. Ownership inscriptions on pieces of equipment, most usually helmets, indicate that one item could have had several owners, being passed from one soldier to another or possibly redistributed by the army on a soldiers retirement.10 Some items of equipment may have been in continuous use for decades and, although these artefacts date largely to the imperial period, the use of second-hand and older military equipment must have taken place in the republican army too. Variation in the type and quality of equipment used within a unit is likely to have been commonplace; there is not even any evidence to suggest that all soldiers within the same unit wore the same kind of armour, whether mail or scale, or the segmented armour
9

10

S. James, The Fabricae: State Arms Factories of the Later Roman Empire, in J. Coulston, ed., Proceedings of the Fourth Roman Military Equipment Conference, BAR S395 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 257331; M.C. Bishop, The Military Fabrica and the Production of Arms in the Early Principate, in Bishop, ed., The Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment, BAR S275 (Oxford, 1985). R. MacMullen, Inscriptions on Armor and the Supply of Arms in the Roman Empire, American Journal of Archaeology LXIV (1960), pp. 2340. MacMullens catalogue of punctim inscriptions on armour includes several helmets with the names of at least three or four different owners on them (13 CIL XIII.10027.219; 42 AE 1933, 259; 47 AE 1952, 90).

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare

that has been popularly regarded as the dening feature of the imperial legion. Infantrymen may have worn a particular type of armour because it was issued to them, but personal preference may have played a role too. Nonetheless, as Robinson rightly observes, from a distance a Roman legion or other unit might have appeared to be fairly uniform in its arms, equipment, and appearance.11 While it is certain that there was a great deal of variation within the different types of equipment employed by Roman soldiers, the question of colour and variations in colour is a deeply confused one that has provoked intense debate, especially over the colour of legionary tunics. Colour is clearly an important factor in military display, used as a means of identication and association. The best example in a Roman context is the generals cloak, his paludamentum (see below), but this served to distinguish rather than to associate. Despite the obvious advantages of doing so, there is no evidence for Roman armies wearing tunics, cloaks, and other items of clothing of a specic colour: though economic considerations may have resulted in the prevalence of certain colours, particularly undyed wool, there is no evidence for the existence of a prescribed uniform colour of tunic.12 The potential of dress and military equipment for the expression of group identity and association has been noted by Burns in his study of military equipment and Romanization in the middle republic.13 In the fourth century BC, the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, provided his mercenaries, who had been drawn from many different sources, with the armour of their own people: this was partly for military efciency (they should ght better with the equipment they were used to), but also to intimidate the enemy (Diodorus 14.41.5). As Burns points out, the latter reason implies that certain equipment might be associated with a particular area or people.14 Helmet and tunic design were therefore possible ways of broadcasting such group identity. The former would, however, have been far more visible than the latter when shields were being employed, and shields themselves offered the most effective means of advertising identity. The hoplites of a number of Greek city states employed distinctive designs on their shields, sometimes a letter representing the citys name as the Spartans did (Xenophon, Hellenika 4.4.10; Eupolis F394 K-A). Roman shields clearly had distinctive designs on them, illustrated by the famous action during the civil war of two Flavian soldiers at the second battle of Cremona in AD 69 who picked up the shields of an enemy legion to
11 12

13 14

R. Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome (London, 1975), p. 9. N. Fuentes suggests that soldiers wore off-white tunics in the early second century AD (N. Fuentes, The Roman Military Tunic, in M. Dawson, ed., Roman Military Equipment: The Accoutrements of War, BAR S336, Oxford, 1987, pp. 4176), while G. Sumners review of a wider collection of sources led him to suggest that red and white were fairly common, but he sensibly concludes that there was unlikely to have been a uniform colour (G. Sumner, Roman Military Clothing (1) 100 BCAD 200, Oxford, 2002, p. 43). M.T. Burns, The Homogenisation of Military Equipment under the Roman Republic, Digressus, supplement 1 (2003), pp. 6085, http:/ /www.digressus.org. Op. cit., pp. 6770.
War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Kate Gilliver

allow themselves to inltrate enemy lines and disable a particularly effective catapult (Tacitus, Hist. 3.23). The episode suggests that individual legions had their own shield decoration or markings, though Vegetius claims that each cohort within the legion had its own shield decoration (Mil. 2.17). Whether legions or legionary cohorts had their own shield designs, it is probably something that developed during the late republic when legions were starting to become more permanent, and were regularly involved in civil war which would seem to necessitate some clear means of identifying one legion, or at least one generals legions, from another. Previously there may have been a generic shield design since many legions were raised only for a single campaigning season, and Roman citizens would have had no long-term association with a particular legion. However, legions serving under a particular general for longer periods of time in the republic may have adopted his name or a symbol as a shield device as an expression of loyalty and condence.15

II. Battleeld Display: Armies

The concept of uniformity in clothing and equipment is anachronistic when studying the ancient world; instead similarity or homogeneity of dress, arms, and equipment is a more helpful way of approaching the study of the appearance of armies in the Roman world. Similarity of equipment was central to military efciency, and also to successful military display and posturing. Although this paper concentrates on the equipment and clothing worn by armies, there were many other ways of ensuring an army deployed for battle presented an impressive and intimidating spectacle. There was a clear awareness in the ancient world of the value of display not just in the peaceful contexts mentioned above, but on the battleeld: the mass movements of armies, the ashing of metals, and colour and sound could combine to create an imposing and intimidating sight designed to give ones own side encouragement and to strike fear into the hearts and minds of the enemy. The importance Roman armies placed on drill, training, and discipline contributed further to the psychological impact of armies
15

The generals name may have served as a means of identication on soldiers shields, but symbols were a more effective means of displaying loyalty; many of the legions established on a permanent footing by Augustus had a legionary emblem that reected their origins under Caesar or Octavian, using a bull for the former, a Capricorn for the latter: L. Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army (London, 1984), pp. 139 40; the shield boss of Junius Dubitatus from Legion VIII Augusta includes that legions bull symbol, CIL VII 495. Livys suggestion that different shields helped Hasdrubal to realize Roman reinforcements had arrived before the battle at the Metaurus in 207 BC (27.47) may be retrojection into the Punic Wars of what was normal practice in Livys own day. Dio (67.10.1) reports that in the Dacian war soldiers were required to have their name and century inscribed on their shields to aid recognition of those performing brave or cowardly deeds, though other than identifying those who had thrown away their shields it is doubtful how practical such a means of recognition could have been, since such ownership inscriptions were small and impossible to read except at very close distance.

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare

appearances that could have an effect on the result of the battle well before the ghting started.16 In his rst-century AD manual on generalship, the Greek writer Onasander advised that: The general should ensure that he deploys his battle line with their equipment glittering, a simple matter requiring only an order to sharpen swords and to burnish helmets and breast-plates. For the advancing ranks appear more terrible with their gleaming weapons, and the terrible sight strikes fear and confusion in the hearts of the enemy. (Onasander 28) Ordering soldiers to clean their arms and armour before battle clearly had other advantages beyond producing an impressive display to intimidate the enemy, most importantly the identication and repair of any defects in equipment, but it also reminded soldiers of their responsibilities to their fellow soldiers and their unit, especially in the case of shield devices.17 Plutarch seems to have been particularly aware of the impact such visual displays could have: he notes the gilded armour and red cloaks of the Macedonians at Pydna in 168 BC, along with the gleaming metal shields of the Bronze Shields (Plutarch, Aem. 18). In a very short encounter before Chaeronea in 86 BC the Romans were unwilling to engage the Pontic army, and Plutarch claims that this was because they were intimidated by the latters spectacular appearance: As the ranks surged back and forth, the ashing of their armour which was magnicently embellished with gold and silver, and the colours of their Median and Scythian cloaks mingling with gleaming bronze and iron, presented a radiant and formidable appearance (Plutarch, Sulla 12). Other authors comment on the psychological impact armies created through their colourful and varied appearances (Polybius 2.29, 3.114; Livy 9.40.16, 10.38.13, 22.46), referring not just to Greek or eastern armies which might reect the literary topos of eastern wealth and decadence. Armies from the western Mediterranean could be equally intimidating through their appearance: the nakedness of some of the Gallic warriors contributed to a terrifying sight at Telamon, according to Polybius (2.29), though their bold decision to ght naked contributed, because of the prickly nature of the ground cover, to their defeat. Livy places considerable emphasis on the appearance of the Samnite legions during campaigns with Rome in the late fourth and
16

17

There have been many attempts to recreate Roman military deployments in lm, television, and by living history societies. In spite of historical inaccuracies, particularly the almost total lack of authenticity in the military equipment used, Stanley Kubricks lm Spartacus (1960) illustrates well the potential effects of drill, organization, and display. The deployment of the Roman army is portrayed at some length, partly from the perspective of the servile army, and the scene shows the effect of the sun reecting off metal equipment, the ashing movement of shields being particularly impressive. C. Gilliver, The Roman Art of War (Stroud, 1999), p. 101. The Christian symbol reportedly employed on their shields by Constantines soldiers at the Milvian bridge provides an excellent example of the potential psychological advantages available.
War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Kate Gilliver

early third centuries BC. The linen legion was supplied with splendid arms and crested helmets to ensure its men stood out among other warriors who were also very nely equipped (Livy 10.38.13), and Livy draws a stark contrast between the Samnite warriors and Roman soldiers.18 The legionaries, Livy claims, had been taught by their commanders that a soldier ought to be rough-looking, not inlaid with gold and silver but trusting to iron [ie the sword] and courage.19 He describes highly ornate Samnite military equipment as spoils of war rather than arms, gleaming bright before an engagement, but unsightly among blood and wounds (Livy 9.40.5), and more for empty display than efciency in action (Livy 10.39.11). Elsewhere he makes a strong contrast between the plain utilitarian armour and equipment worn by Titus Manlius and the painted and gilded armour worn by his Gallic opponent in single combat.20 This attitude that real (or Roman) soldiers ought to be plain-looking and not adorned with valuable decorated equipment nds echoes in some of the exempla of Frontinus and the reported behaviour of other generals. Scipio Aemilianus broke equipment that was self-indulgent and of no use on campaign, as part of his programme of imposing discipline on the demoralized army at Numantia (Frontinus, Strat. 4.1.1), and Africanus criticized a man for having an elaborately decorated shield (Strat. 4.1.5), evidence also perhaps for a lack of uniformity in shield design during the Second Punic War. Such anecdotes belong to a tradition of Roman austerity compared with barbarian or eastern luxury, the former being a Roman quality that was considered to be one of the factors that contributed to Romes conquest of the Mediterranean world.21 Indeed, in spite of the impressive and sometimes daunting appearance of eastern armies, the variety of different colours and equipment used by different units is highlighted by ancient authors as an indicator of an underlying weakness, a lack of the cohesion that came from common origins. While stressing the huge size of many late Hellenistic armies, historians also emphasize the varied origins of different contingents of units from allied and subject peoples. Lists of different troop types and strengths might appear impressive in the narratives, but they are often accompanied by a statement about the problems of units lacking a common language and

18

19 20 21

Livys description is plausible, according to A. Rouveret, Tite-Live, Histoire Romaine IX.40: la description des armes samnites ou les piges de la symtrie, in A. Adam and A. Rouveret, eds, Guerre et socits en Italie (Paris, 1986), pp. 91120. Florus is very critical of the gold and silver Samnite equipment for its ostentation (1.6.7). Livy 9.40.5: doctique a ducibus errant horridum militem esse debere, non caelatum auro et argento sed ferro et animis fretum. Livy 7.10, though according to Aulus Gellius, citing Claudius Quadrigarius, the Gaul was naked (Gellius 9.13). E. Dench, From Barbarians to New Men (Oxford, 1995), pp. 99102, and Italy and Sicily in the Hellenistic Age, in A. Erskine, ed., A Companion to the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 2003), pp. 294310.

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare

culture.22 There is an implicit, and sometimes explicit, understanding that Roman armies did not suffer similar difculties in spite of the signicant role of Italian allies (socii) and other allied troops. Livy makes his opinion on this very clear in his account of Magnesia in 189 BC, contrasting the varied origins and appearances of Antiochus troops with the Roman army, which was almost uniform in both men and equipment (Livy 37.39), and in his description of the opposing armies in Romes war with its Latin allies in 340 BC, in which he claims that there was no difference between the two armies except in courage (Livy 8.8). However, Livy may have been drawing on observations from the social war and the recent civil wars in writing of clashes between Rome and her near neighbours, an episode which he actually equates to civil war (Livy 8.6.15), and on the contemporary ideal of a unied Italy, tota Italia, resulting in the overemphasis of similarity of equipment, appearance, and language in the third and early second centuries BC. By the early rst century BC differences between the equipment and appearance of legionaries and Italian socii are likely to have been far less obvious than in earlier periods.23 It seems entirely likely that at least until the middle republic the different cohorts of socii could have been differentiated from each other and the legions by their dress and equipment; indeed, allied cohorts may even have seen this as an opportunity to assert their own identity despite their subordinate status. It is unfortunate that there is too little evidence for allied military equipment and appearance to address this issue satisfactorily. In addition to the lack of evidence for uniformity in the appearance of Roman and allied troops, it is also perfectly clear from the literary sources that Roman armies did not consist of the plain, rough-looking soldiers of Livys traditional republican ideal. There was no concept of parade equipment in the Roman period: soldiers wore the same equipment, whether on peacetime exercises, on military parades, or in battle. Caesars narrative of his armys ambush by the Nervii in 57 BC stresses the suddenness of the attack by stating that his soldiers did not have time to put on their insignia, indicating that it was normal practice to attach some kind of decorative appendage to their equipment.24 In spite of the literary theme discussed above, spectacular appearance was important in Roman armies, and Onasanders advice, aimed at generals of the early imperial period, was both practical and relevant. Polybius
22

23 24

Zama, Livy 30.33 (uaria adhortatio erat in exercitu inter tot homines quibus non lingua, non mos, non lex, non arma, non uestitus habitusque, non causa militandi eadem); Magnesia, Livy 37.40 (regia acies uaria magis multis gentibus, dissimilitudine armorum auxiliorumque erat). Appian makes a similar observation about the polyglot origins of Pompeys soon to be defeated army at Pharsalus (B.Civ. 2.75); the implication is that the lack of cohesion (and discipline) is a major contribution to the defeat. Burns, Homogenisation. Caesar, B.G. 2.21. Insignia has been translated as crests (Caesar, B.G. 7.45, as translated by A. Wiseman and P. Wiseman, The Battle for Gaul, London, 1980; accepted by Bishop, On Parade, note 4, p. 23), but crista is the usual word for a helmet crest; insignia more usually means symbols of ofce, honours, or decorations, on which see below.
War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

10

Kate Gilliver

notes that helmet crests provided an illusion of height, claiming that the helmet with its 18-inch crest of feathers, along with the rest of his equipment, made the legionary seem twice his real height, giving him a striking aspect and appearing terrifying to the enemy (Polybius 6.23.13). Velites (light-armed infantry) on the other hand sometimes covered their plain helmets with wolfskin or the skin of another animal (Polybius 6.22.3), the purpose of which was to provide additional protection and to serve as a distinguishing feature to aid recognition of individuals in battle and ensure that brave actions were correctly rewarded. Wolfskin was an appropriate choice of decoration given the skirmishing and chasing role of the velites, and it is very likely that the wolf emblem, one of the ve emblems used before the eagle became the prime legionary standard, was the standard of the velites and represented them (Pliny, N.H. 10.16). However, aside from the small protection it offered, the pelt was intended to distinguish individuals in the confusion of battle, and Polybius makes it clear that wolf was not the only animal that might be used, presumably by velites striving to make their equipment more easily identiable than that of their comrades. Modern reconstructions showing all the velites in a legion dressed in complete wolfskins with the wolfs head over the helmet are inaccurate, and there is no evidence for the animals head being used by these troops at all.25 From these examples it is clear that appearance was important to soldiers in the republican army, both for the purpose of individual recognition and to provide a psychological advantage over the enemy. Contrary to the implications in the literary sources, Roman armies could be visually just as intimidating as Samnite, Greek, or Gallic ones. In contrast to the generals Livy has extolling the plain roughness of Roman soldiers in the Samnite wars, Sempronius Gracchus took advantage of his armys impressive appearance before the walls of Certina in Spain in 180 BC. Gracchus had his siege engines lined up ready to attempt an assault if necessary and, although the defenders were considering terms, they were clearly prepared to ght if they must (Livy 40.47). In order to encourage the surrender, Gracchus had all his infantry and cavalry equip themselves and undertake a series of manoeuvres under arms in full view of the city. Certina promptly surrendered.26 While we have far less historical evidence on the appearance of imperial armies, partly because of the nature of the sources, which provide few accounts of large-scale campaigns and battles, there is a wealth of archaeological evidence indicating a brightly equipped army which most likely put on
25 26

J. Warry, Warfare in the Classical World (London, 1980), p. 110; E. Lendon, Soldiers and Ghosts (New York, 2005), p. 180. The value of well-drilled and experienced troops is well illustrated here: cf. Alexanders similar actions when his army was caught on awkward ground by an Illyrian force; he ordered the phalanx through a series of complex manoeuvres in silence and at high speed. By the time the phalanx raised its war cry the Illyrians were in full retreat, presumably terried by the skill and professionalism of the Macedonian soldiers (Arrian, Anabasis 1.6.1).

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare

11

a highly impressive display of ashing metals and colour when it deployed for battle. The hippika gymnasia of Arrian give a good idea of the kinds of sweeping manoeuvres the cavalry might perform, not just on the parade ground but also in battle, for the wheeling manoeuvres and throwing of javelins while turning from the enemy were valuable skills for cavalry to practise.27 The emperor Aurelian is reported to have advised a subordinate to ensure his soldiers kept their arms polished and equipment bright, and wore their military decorations in public, partly no doubt to present an intimidating sight not only to any enemy, but also to the civilian population, and also as an indication that military discipline was being maintained.28 Plutarch claims that, at Pharsalus, Caesar was worried about the psychological impact on his troops of Pompeys cavalry because they were so magnicently equipped (Plutarch, Pomp. 69), though they clearly looked better than they fought, particularly when Caesars infantry targeted their faces (Caesar, B.Civ. 3.93; Appian, B.Civ. 2.78). Caesar himself, according to Suetonius, was so concerned with the appearance of his soldiers that he had their weapons inlaid with gold and silver, both for show, and so the soldiers would keep hold of them more rmly in battle, fearing the cost of losing them (Suetonius, Caes. 67). It is rather more likely that Caesars soldiers decorated their own equipment from the wealth acquired on campaign, and although Suetonius presents it as an example of Caesars indulgent attitude towards his soldiers, it was and always had been the case that Roman soldiers personalized their equipment, as discussed below. Nonetheless, again we see the potential of ashy equipment to the visual display of an army, polished metal such as the bronze used for most republican helmets being particularly effective in this respect, as Onasander notes: Soldiers should wave their swords above their heads towards the sun; the polished spear-heads, ashing swords and reections of the sun from the army sends out a terrible lightning ash of war (Onasander 29). Appearance was an aspect of the psychological games of warfare, and its importance was clearly recognized by soldiers and generals, historians, and the compilers of tactical manuals. It served to foster army and unit cohesion, and played a key role in pitched battle, with each side trying to intimidate the other before the ghting actually started; indeed on occasion it could help bring about a bloodless victory. While similarity of equipment and its decoration, along with drill and discipline, could encourage unit and army cohesion and provide a psychological advantage in war, it is also necessary to consider how within the group identity of Roman military units it was possible for soldiers to tailor their own appearance so as to assert some individual identity
27

28

K. Dixon and P. Southern, The Roman Cavalry (London, 1992), pp. 144 45. The dragon standards with their owing cloth tails adopted from Danubian tribes during the second century AD would have been an equally impressive contribution to Roman military display, especially when employed by swift-moving cavalry (Arrian, Tactica 35). Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Aurelian 7.6 7.
War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

12

Kate Gilliver

themselves. As indicated above, the ideal of uniformity propagated by public monuments in Rome such as Trajans Column, and encouraged by historians such as Livy, did not exist in reality, as can easily be seen through a consideration of the archaeological evidence of military equipment and the sculpted military tombstones from the frontier areas, which probably provide a more accurate representation of legionaries and auxiliaries than the Rome monuments.29

III. Battleeld Display: Individuals

Generals were expected to display their individuality and ensure their visibility on the battleeld and did so in a number of ways, most signicantly by wearing the paludamentum, the commanders cloak which ensured he could be identied. It was usually a distinctive colour, red or purple, or white, though colours do not seem to have been prescribed; Crassus wore a black cloak at Carrhae which was subsequently interpreted as a bad omen (Valerius Maximus 1.6.11). It was very much the symbol of generalship and command, and as such was a desirable item to obtain as spoils (Suetonius, Julius 64; Valerius Maximus 5.1.11). Caesars paludamentum brought great resolve to his hard-pressed troops in a critical situation at Alesia (B.G. 7.88), and such displays may have brought dismay to the enemy, or alternatively encouraged them and marked out the general as a target. Being seen and recognized by his troops, indeed military display both on a personal level and beyond, was clearly something Pompey was well aware of, and during his career he employed a variety of methods to ensure this, though not always with the intended results. He ensured that his whole army put on a brilliant display to impress Sulla when he rst met him as an ally during the civil war (Plutarch, Pomp. 8), and in Africa he got into the habit of ghting from horseback without a helmet so that his soldiers could see him. Plutarch claims, probably untruthfully, that he started doing this when his own side nearly killed him when he was slow with the password and they did not recognize him (Pomp. 12). In reality, Pompeys custom, perhaps in emulation of Alexander the Great, was no doubt to ensure that his men knew their general was ghting with them and would be able to reward any brave actions, and perhaps as a gesture of bravado aimed at both his own men and the enemy. Later, in Spain, he rode a horse equipped with golden cheek-bosses and rich caparisons, again perhaps to ensure he would be recognized and to encourage his army, but the plan backred and his obvious importance meant he became a target for the enemy. However, Plutarch claims that the enemy were more interested in capturing the richly equipped horse than its rider, so Pompey was able to escape (Pomp. 19). After Pharsalus, Pompey swiftly discarded the clothes
29

Robinson, Armour, p. 7; M.C. Bishop and J.C.N. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment (London, 1993).

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare

13

that he wore for the battle because they marked him out as the commander (Pomp. 72; Appian, B.Civ. 2.81), and his paludamentum would surely have been the key garment to abandon to ensure his safe escape. As with generals, the presence of ofcers of all ranks on the battleeld was expected to encourage their men to ght more bravely (Polybius 6.22) through their very presence and their role in witnessing courageous actions and ensuring they were rewarded. In addition, some ofcers had important tactical roles and so, like standards, they needed to be visible and their movements apparent to their men. Livys mention of the military tribune Decius in 343 BC wearing a common soldiers cloak (a sagulum) and ordering his centurions to dress as common soldiers to avoid being identied on an intelligence-gathering mission indicates that ofcers might wear distinctive clothing associated with rank. Tribunes are likely to have been distinguished by items such as a muscled cuirass and leather pteruges, but there is very little direct evidence for differences between the military dress of centurions and that of ordinary soldiers in the republican period, when personal wealth probably affected dress and equipment as much as rank.30 The easiest and most effective means of ensuring visibility and displaying rank or status was through the wearing of a distinctive helmet: Tiberius Gracchus had such a helmet that he used in battle which was nely decorated and, more signicantly here, was easily distinguishable from a distance (Plutarch, Tib. Gr. 17). We have already seen that helmet crests were used to add the illusion of height to infantrymen, and sculptural and archaeological evidence attests to a wide variety in the type of crests attached to helmets, including large central plumes and plumes on the sides of helmets.31 Helmet plumes had a number of possible roles beyond the psychological noted by Polybius. Robinson observes the potential of crests to advertise group identity, suggesting that different cohorts or even centuries might wear crests of different design or colour.32 Crests might also be used to mark out rank, though the transverse crest on the centurions helmet is the only known specic example. It is Vegetius who provides this information, noting that it was to ensure the centurions recognition by his men, and such crests are illustrated

30

31 32

See Robinson, Armour, pp. 14752, on the muscled cuirass; sculptural evidence indicates that this type of cuirass was not exclusive to ofcers of senior status, though in the republican period when soldiers were equipping themselves at their own expense such an item of equipment would have been beyond the means of the vast majority of Roman citizens. Op. cit., pp. 140 43. Op. cit., p. 141. Drawing on Plinys comment about the legions name, M. Bishop argues that soldiers of Legion V Alaudae wore helmet crests inspired by the feathered tufts of a particular type of lark or alauda (Legion V Alaudae and the Crested Lark, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies I, 1990, pp. 16164). However, Pliny states only that the legion took its name from the crested lark, the alauda, and says nothing about helmet crests directly (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 11.121). Although it is entirely possible that the legion dened itself with a unique crest, the legions identication with the alauda may have come from some other attribute of the bird, or an omen relating to it.
War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

14

Kate Gilliver

in a small number of funerary reliefs.33 The role of the centurion was to lead from the front and although centuries had standard-bearers with standards, the crested helmet could also act as a focus for soldiers, ensure swift recognition of an ofcer, and ensure that their orders, and movements, would be followed. The high prole of centurions in many literary accounts of battles indicates their visibility on the battleeld, through both their actions and their appearance (eg Caesar, B.G. 5.44, 6.38; Appian, B.Civ. 2.82). Ofcers needed to be visible to their men to lead them effectively, and literary sources indicate that soldiers gained condence and encouragement to ght more bravely if they could see that their ofcers were with them or watching them (Polybius 6.22; Caesar, B.G. 7.88). However, this was not the only reason that Romans of every rank and status made considerable efforts with their dress and equipment to ensure they stood out on the battleeld. The Roman army was not a monolithic, uniform institution but one that evolved from the warrior bands of the regal period and the early republic. Aspects of the warrior mentality remained, along with the expectations and pressures of the militarized society that early Rome evolved into. Sallust complains that the elite youth of his day were more interested in wine and women than ne armour and war-horses (Catiline 7), claiming the reason they had once been more interested in ashy armour than ashy women was that they competed eagerly among themselves to win honour, each man seeking to be the rst to engage the enemy, to scale a rampart, and while performing such a deed to be seen (conspici). In spite of Sallusts moralizing tone about the debasement of society in the late republic, the literary tradition of heroic actions in war by individuals and their desire to be seen is reected in other evidence. Competition for honour drove war in the republic, and the best way for an elite Roman to attract attention was to earn public recognition for virtus in war and the military decorations for valour which could be shown off in public in his home.34 Those who had won the corona civica for saving a fellow citizens life in battle were among those recruited to ll the ranks of the senate after Cannae (Livy 23.23). It was therefore extremely valuable for an ambitious aristocrat to acquire a reputation for courage and so to be visible on the battleeld to ensure such actions were witnessed. Nor was this desire to be seen being brave limited to the elite, as illustrated by the emphasis epitaphs and funerary sculpture placed on military decorations awarded to soldiers of all ranks.35 Some inscriptions go further and display enormous pride at the military achievements being commemorated, even a boastfulness that echoes the attitudes of heroes in the Homeric
33 34

35

Vegetius, Mil. 2.13, 2.16; tombstones: T. Calidius Severus (Carnuntum, CIL III.11213) and Marcus Petronius Classicus (Illyricum, CIL III.4060). T.P. Wiseman, Conspicui postes tectaque digne deo: The Public Image of Aristocratic and Imperial Houses in the Late Republic and Early Empire, in C. Pietri, ed., LUrbs: espace urbain et histoire (Rome, 1987), pp. 393 413. V.A. Maxeld, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (London, 1981), pp. 48 49.

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare

15

epics.36 At least some ordinary soldiers were also in erce competition with each other for recognition for bravery and the opportunities for promotion and social advancement that came from public recognition of valour.37 Although in some instances soldiers who wished to claim rewards of valour might have to come forward as was the case at Cartagena (note 37), or with the soldier Scaevius, who personally presented to Caesar two enemy breastplates he had captured in Britain and received promotion to centurion (Valerius Maximus 3.2.24; Plutarch, Caes. 16) in the majority of cases it seems that ofcers were expected to note brave conduct and ensure individuals were appropriately rewarded. Indeed, Plutarch points out that Caesar witnessed Scaevius actions rsthand, and the generals presence may have provided strong encouragement to the legionary to perform the reported deeds. This potential is likely to have provided motivation for some ordinary soldiers, like the elite, to ensure their kit was sufciently different or eye-catching, as Polybius implies. However, with the exception of Polybius comment about the choice of head protection by velites, there is very little commentary in the literary sources on distinctive equipment worn by those of lower status. Florus does report on the bizarre contraption worn by one centurion in the early imperial wars fought in Moesia: this consisted of a re-pan attached to the mans helmet which, when fanned by the movement of his body, sent out ames from his head. The historian is rather scathing of the centurion, suggesting this was stupid and comparing him to the barbarian enemy, but he admits that the effect terrorized the enemy (Florus 2.26.16). However, such details are rare, and far more information can be obtained from archaeological evidence, most of which dates to the imperial period. Although signicant numbers of plain, undecorated items of equipment survive from antiquity, numerous examples of personalized and individually distinctive pieces of military equipment have survived, indicating that for some, at least, there was a need or a desire to stand out. Indeed the huge variety in terms of style and decoration is further evidence against the concept of uniformity of equipment in the Roman army. Although some of the most decoratively varied items of equipment, most notably sword-belts and their attachments, and helmets, are over-represented in the archaeological record, it may well
36

37

The epitaph of Tiberius Claudius Maximus boasts of how he had captured the Dacian king Decebalus and taken his head back to deliver to the emperor Trajan in person (M. Speidel, The Captor of Decebalus: A New Inscription from Philippi, Journal of Roman Studies LX, 1970, pp. 14253), while a Batavian auxiliary claimed that he was the bravest man in his unit, boasted of his feats at swimming, javelin throwing, and archery, and laid down a challenge to see if anyone can emulate my feats after me. By my own example, I am the rst person to have done such deeds (ILS 2558). At Cartagena a dispute arose over entitlement to the corona muralis (Livy 26.48), while Caesar claims competition for honours encouraged his centurions to disobey orders, causing the defeat at Gergovia (B.G. 7.4752). The speech of Spurius Ligustinus illustrates well the importance of a reputation for valour for a member of the lower orders as well as the advancement in both military rank and social status that could accompany such a reputation (Livy 42.24).
War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

16

Kate Gilliver

have been the case that all equipment was subject to similar levels of personalization.38 Self-display is not the only reason for the personalization of equipment: easy recognition of ones own equipment and the availability of easily portable wealth no doubt also encouraged soldiers to decorate their gear with gilt and enamel. However, as already indicated, helmets would have been the most visible part of a soldier in battle, and so it is not at all surprising that the artefacts themselves show considerable variation in decoration and identifying features, as was noted by the literary sources of the republican period. Of the more distinctive helmets in Robinsons catalogue one is an iron helmet from Heddernheim decorated with bronze xtures displaying embossed wavy hair on the brow and cheek pieces and snakes on the bowl; the helmet is topped by a large bronze knob which served as a crest holder. A second is an Imperial-Italic D helmet from the Rhine at Mainz, again iron with a great deal of bronze decoration attached, including embossed eagles and altars.39 Highly decorated or expensive equipment has sometimes been interpreted as having belonged to ofcers, solely on the grounds of its impressive appearance, but ownership inscriptions indicate that this is not so: a signicant number of helmets with such inscriptions show that they belonged to ordinary soldiers and cavalrymen. The Theilenhofen cavalry helmet, for example, based on an archaic Attic design in tinned brass with embossed decoration and an eagle for a crest, has previously been claimed to have belonged to an ofcer.40 However, punctim inscriptions indicate that the visually striking helmet had several owners, at least one of whom was an ordinary trooper and not an ofcer at all. In emulation of their ofcers, and for exactly the same reasons, ordinary soldiers may have provided themselves with distinctive helmet plumes to assist in the witnessing by ofcers and peers, and subsequent rewarding, of courageous actions. Though Robinson suggests that subunits such as cohorts and centuries might have identied themselves by such means, there is no reason why individuals might not have done so as well.41 Wearing distinctive equipment was intended partly to ensure that an individual, whatever his status, was visible on the battleeld, just as some participants in modern professional team sports choose distinctively coloured boots, the one item not restricted by team colours and design.42
38

39 40 41

42

On the variations in sword-belts and their attachments, see M.C. Bishop, The Early Imperial Apron, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies III (1992), pp. 81104, and on their signicance as military identiers, see Coulston, Armed and Belted Men, pp. 76118. Robinson, Armour, p. 100 (the Heddernheim helmet), p. 68 (the Mainz helmet). P. Connolly, Greece and Rome at War (London, 1981), p. 237; Robinson, Armour, p. 97. A soldier who led the Romans to success in an engagement in 282 BC was later believed to have been Mars because of the distinctive helmet crest he had worn, which must have been different from other crests (Valerius Maximus 1.8.6). Gold, silver, red, and, the most popular, white boots have been worn by football and rugby players in recent years, attracting the attention of spectators, television cameras, and sports commentators. Distinctive hairstyles are also worn by sportsmen to aid instant recognition, the most easily visible being the Mohican, which substitutes for a helmet crest.

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare

17

In both cases such choice of attire acts as a silent, visual challenge, boasting of the wearers skills and status as warrior or sportsman. The Gauls in Livys narratives of single combats with Romans are noted for the quality of their equipment (Livy 7.9, 7.26), worn as an advertisement of their military prowess. Such claims may have encouraged an opponent to take up a challenge from the warrior or seek an engagement with him because victory would enhance his own reputation, and the resultant spoils would be worth more in terms of either nancial reward or, for a Roman, the kudos to be obtained from the display of impressive trophies in his home. Indeed, this is implied by Livy in the rhetoric he attributes to the Roman generals in the wars against the Samnites (Livy 9.40, 10.38), and in his description of Telamon, Polybius states quite clearly his belief that, while the Romans might have been intimidated by the Gauls, they were also red up by the prospect of gaining valuable booty (Polybius 2.29). It seems entirely likely that the reverse also happened, that Roman soldiers and ofcers used their appearance and equipment to boast of their own military prowess, and in so doing set themselves up as potentially more valuable targets in battle, but also gave themselves a greater opportunity to be noticed and honoured for their bravery.

IV. Decorations for Valour

A variety of different awards for valour in battle were available to Roman soldiers: promotions, nancial rewards and the resultant possibility of social advancement, public recognition, and, for the elite, the possibility of enhanced political opportunities, and military decorations which provided the most public declaration of courage. These awards came in a physical form coronae or crowns for particularly courageous actions, torques, armillae, and phalerae for lesser actions and were worn on the body, and in the case of the coronae, and perhaps the other decorations too, might be displayed in the recipients house as further advertisement of his bravery.43 Such awards were clearly valued very highly by the recipient, as illustrated by the dispute at Cartagena mentioned above, and their prominence on the tombstones of the early principate. The decorations, the ancient equivalent of the medals awarded in modern armies, were worth far more than the simple monetary value of the metals from which they were manufactured, usually bronze or silver. Valerius Maximus reports one of Scipio Africanus cavalrymen preferring silver armillae to a more valuable gold monetary reward because he could then have a permanent display of his courage (Valerius Maximus 8.14.5). Polybius considered the Romans to be obsessed with military decorations, along with punishments, and believed this went a long way to explaining Roman military success (Polybius 6.39). Caesar even blamed his defeat at Gergovia on overenthusiastic centurions seeking glory and
43

Livy 23.23; Maxeld, Military Decorations, provides a detailed study of the awards.
War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

18

Kate Gilliver

military decorations (B.G. 7.47, 7.50), and though he is attempting to absolve himself of responsibility for the setback, there is an element of plausibility in his claim, given Plutarchs later statement that it was partly his generosity in presenting his soldiers awards for courage that ensured their extraordinary bravery and fanatical loyalty (Plutarch, Caes. 1617). Roman society or, in the imperial period, Roman military society encouraged and expected those decorated and promoted for valour in battle to repeat their bravery in the future. Centurions and standardbearers were promoted for courage and leadership and were expected to continue to show these qualities. The former centurion Spurius Ligustinus, decorated for bravery 34 times, claimed that no one in the army of any rank would surpass him in virtus, whatever rank he was appointed at (Livy 42.24), while Caesars centurions Pullo and Vorenus, competing for an upcoming promotion to primus pilus, chief centurion, were aware that the most effective way of publicizing themselves and their qualications for the position was through overt displays of courage in battle, and deliberately risked their lives to prove theirs, unnecessarily leaving the defences of an encampment that was under German attack (Caesar, B.G. 5.44). Conversely, Caesar demoted several standard-bearers after his setback against Pompey at Dyracchium because they had failed to show the leadership and courage expected of men of that rank (Caesar, B.Civ. 3.75). Centurions, standard-bearers, and other such ofcers were highly visible in battle, identiable not only to their own men through accoutrements such as the transverse crest or the standard, but also to the enemy, and this visibility may have contributed to the disproportionate casualty gures often reported among centurions and standard-bearers. Likewise, soldiers who had been publicly recognized and rewarded for their courage may have been marked out in battle by the military decorations they wore. In the only modern study of Roman military decorations, Maxeld argued that soldiers would not have worn their decorations in battle.44 To do so was to risk loss or damage to what were intrinsically, as well no doubt as sentimentally, valuable items, but Maxeld admits that they may not have been much safer left back in camp. There is little literary evidence either for or against the wearing of decorations in battle, and what there is is unspecic and ambiguous, as Maxeld points out. The insignia which Caesar mentioned could not be put on when his army was ambushed by the Nervii may have been decorations or some other symbol of rank, and the same is true for those a victorious enemy attempted to despoil from the body of one of Caesars centurions in an engagement before Munda in 45 BC; either decorations or rank indicators would have served as valuable proof of military skill and courage in the latter case.45 Sculptural evidence is equally unhelpful. Although decorations awarded to entire units are illustrated on the columns of
44 45

Maxeld, Military Decorations, pp. 14243. Caesar, B.G. 2.21; Bellum Hispaniensis 23.

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare

19

Figure 1 Tombstone of Marcus Caelius, centurion of Legion XVIII. Prominently displayed are his military decorations: phalerae, torques, and a civic crown, awarded for saving the life of a Roman citizen in battle. Source: Landesmuseum, Bonn Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, attached to the units standards, no individual soldiers are depicted wearing decorations on the public sculptures of Trajans Column or Adamclisi. Individual awards are, however, a prominent feature of the funeral sculpture of the recipients (Figure 1).46 This in itself does not help to resolve the issue of whether these decorations were worn in battle, but it should not be assumed that they were not because they were too valuable in monetary terms. Indeed, their value and the values that they represented, as we shall see, were such that they were very likely to have been worn in battle. The Roman army was not a modern army ghting modern warfare, but an ancient institution which evolved from a warrior society ghting a style of warfare
46

Maxeld, Military Decorations, pp. 5053.

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

20

Kate Gilliver

in which both institutional and individual display had enormous signicance. Soldiers of every rank and status dressed up to go to war and contributed to the display of the army: they wore gilded helmets, enamelled scabbards, and belts plated with valuable enamels and metals, all probably at least as valuable in monetary terms as the military decorations they may have had; these precious items of equipment were not left back in camp. The decorations clearly had a sentimental value greatly superior to their monetary worth, as indicated by the example of the cavalryman who preferred decorations to monetary reward (Valerius Maximus 8.14.5), and they would probably have been much safer on the individual than left behind in a camp that might be looted or abandoned. If only because of their value, soldiers had every reason to wear their decorations in battle. However, decorations were as much a part of a soldiers identity as his military equipment, and like the centurions transverse crest were a public statement of status and courage. Wearing them in battle might have helped to bolster an individuals courage with the memory of earlier successful actions in which the decorations were earned, and are likely to have provided inspiration to others. As shown above, competition for military honours acted as a powerful incentive to both the recipients to maintain their reputation and others to emulate those already decorated, and it is precisely on this effect that Caesar blamed his defeat at Gergovia. The sight of such decorations adorning the recipients immediately before and during battle is likely to have provided ongoing encouragement to those ghting. Awards made to entire units were, it seems, worn into battle on the units standards and most likely served the same purpose, providing encouragement to the men of that unit and to other units to emulate them.47 As well as acting as an incentive to the bearers and their fellow soldiers, decorations, made of bright metals, usually bronze or silver, might have served in the same way as distinctive military equipment to attract the attention of the enemy. As a result, the wearer might become more of a target to an enemy seeking to enhance his own reputation for courage in the same way that distinctive equipment declared the wearer to be a target worthy of ghting and defeating, not just for the value of the plundered gear but for the kudos that would come from a successful action. Through a tradition or expectation of wearing military decorations in battle, a Roman soldier who had been publicly rewarded for bravery became more of a potential target and, through a combination of that and the expectations of a military society, had signicant incentives to set an example

47

Competition between units and their subdivisions was recommended by military theorists (Onasander 42) and employed by generals to speed up work on entrenchments (Josephus, B.Iud. 5.502507); no doubt such competition extended to success in battle, particularly once units acquired permanent existence in the early principate. The stormy relationship between Legion XVIII Gemina and their Batavian auxiliaries may well have had its origins in such inter-unit rivalries (Tacitus, Hist. 1.5964, 2.2728).

War in History 2007 14 (1)

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

Display in Roman Warfare

21

of valour in the future. Military decorations, earned through acts of conspicuous courage, perhaps served not just to reward and publicize a hero, but to ensure that he maintained his heroic actions. Physical display was a central feature of Roman armies on campaign. Contrary to the literary ideal of plain, rough soldiers, Roman armies were as aware as any others of the importance and value of looking the part. They used their appearance as a means of bolstering their own unit cohesion and morale, and of intimidating the enemy through their impressive aspect. Combined with that most traditional of Roman military qualities, discipline, well-drilled armies could provide themselves with a signicant psychological advantage over the enemy even before an engagement began. Yet the Roman army was not a monolithic institution manned by uniformed soldiers: it had evolved from the warrior bands of the early republic, and it is not surprising to see some of the values of warrior societies continuing even when military organization became as sophisticated as Romes did by the middle to late republic. The system of rewards stimulated individualism, and therefore individuals were encouraged to enhance their own visibility on the battleeld through personal display. Those who were successful in having their courageous actions spotted by their superiors might be rewarded in such a way as to enhance their visibility and thereby impel them to continue their brave deeds.

Downloaded from http://wih.sagepub.com by guest on January 15, 2009

War in History 2007 14 (1)