Sunteți pe pagina 1din 15

Trajan's Guard at Adamklissi: Infantry or Cavalry?

Author(s): Michael B. Charles


Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 53, H. 4 (2004), pp. 476-489
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436744
Accessed: 13-08-2015 20:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte
Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TRAJAN'S GUARD AT ADAMKLISSI:


INFANTRYOR CAVALRY?*
On one of the metopes of the Tropaeum Traiani at Adamklissi, now in modem
Rumania, we find a figure generally described as the emperor Trajan, both on
account of his equipment and familiar hairstyle, accompanied by two soldiers
(fig. 1).1 All three figures are unmounted. But who are the two men to the right
of the emperor? Commentators have variously described them as legionaries,
auxiliaries, and even Praetorian Guardsmen. On the other hand, one notable
scholar has suggested that they are supposed to represent dismounted cavalry
troopers. The present discussion hopes to provide a balanced study of this small
but fascinating problem, which I have briefly touched upon in a recent article in
anotherjournal.2

Journal abbreviations follow the 'Liste des periodiques' in L'Ann&e philologique. In


addition: BAR = British Archaeological Reports, Oxford; BMC = Coins of the Roman
Empire in the British Museum, 6 vols, ed. H. Mattingly (London 1965-76); RIC = The
Roman Imperial Coinage, 10 vols, ed. H. Mattingly, et al. (London 1923-94). I would
like to thank Associate Professor B.W. Jones for his assistance and Mr A.W. Collins for
taking the time to proof-read this paper. Thanks must also be expressed to Historia's
anonymous referee for some useful suggestions.
A photograph of the metope in question can be found in many works, e.g. F.B. Florescu,
Das Siegesdenkmal von Adamklissi Tropaeum Traiani (Bucharest/Bonn 1965) metope
XXXVI; J. Bennett, Trajan: Optimus Princeps (London/New York 1997) pl. 8A; I.A.
Richmond, Trajan's Army on Trajan's Column (London 1982) 48-49 = id., "Adamklissi",
PBSR 35 (n.s. 22) (1967) pi. XVIII; L. Rossi, Trajan's Column and the Dacian Wars,
trans. J.N.C. Toynbee (London 1971) 62; id., "A Historiographic Reassessment of the
Metopes of the Tropaeum Traiani at Adamklissi", AJ 129 (1972) pl. Vb; G.R. Watson,
The Roman Soldier (London 1969) 93, illustration 21. On Trajan's appearance in plastic
art, see D. Boschung, "Die Bildnisse des Trajan", in E. Schallmayer (ed.), Traian in
Germanien - Traian im Reich. Bericht des dritten Saalburgkolloquiums (Bad Homburg
1999) 137-44. Illustrations are the product of the author. CIL III 12467 (= E.M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian [Cambridge
19661 document 303) suggests that the Tropaeum Traiani should be dated to A.D. 108/9.
The date assigned to the dedication of the monument is the thirteenth period of Trajan's
tribunician power. Photographs of a modern replica of the Tropaeum can be seen in A.
Nunnerich-Asmus, Traian. Ein Kaiser der Superlative am Beginn einer Umbruchzeit?
(Mainz am Rhein 2002) 2 and Abb. 23.
M.B. Charles, "The Flavio-Trajanic miles: the Appearance of Citizen Infantry on Trajan's
Column", Latomus 61 (2002) 676-677 and n. 51-52.
Historia, Band LIII/4 (2004)
? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Trajan'sGuardat Adamklissi:Infantryor Cavalry?

477

__.4

Fig. 1. Metope XXXVI (32). The emperor and his escort.


The metope in question, which Florescu numbers XXXVI, and which other
scholars, using the so-called 'inverse order', describe as 32, was probably
carved by local military artisans.3This would explain the inherentcrudity of the
work, a factor which has been aggravated to no small extent by severe weathering. On the left of the metope, the emperor, whose face has been badly
damaged, wears a variation of the usual panoply of a Roman general, viz. a
decorated Hellenistic-style muscle cuirass characterised by the presence of the
imperial eagle, and a full quadruple-tiered skirt of leather pteryges.4 It is
3

The most readilyavailableworkon the Tropaeum,althoughsupersededin some aspects,


remainsFlorescu,Siegesdenkmal(as in n. 1). See also G.C. Picard,Les troph&esromains.
Contributiond i'histoire de la religion et de l'art triomphalde Rome(Paris 1957) 393406; K. Strobel, Untersuchungenzu den DakerkriegenTrajans.Studienzur Geschichte
des mittlerenund unterenDonauraumesin der Hohen Kaiserzeit (Bonn 1984) 34-40,
231-239. Florescu'snumberis writtenin Romannumerals,while the numbersin parentheses are the so-called 'inverse order', which is used in works such as M.C. Bishop/
J.C.N. Coulston,RomanMilitaryEquipmentfrom the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome
(London1993); Richmond,Trajan'sArmy(as in n. 1); andRossi, Trajan'sColumn(as in
n. 1). For our purposes,the actualorderof the metopes is of no real importance.
On othermonuments,the emperor'spterygesaresingle-tieredwith a doublerow of metal
lappetsat the top (GreatTrajanicFrieze, Arch of Trajanat Benevento),or double-tiered
(Trajan'sColumn).

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

478

MICHAELB. CHARLES

difficult to ascertain whether he wearsfeminalia, for the surface of the legs is in


poor condition. Trajan appears to be leaning against a tree-trunkwith his right
hand, and one commentatorhas suggested that he carries a staff in his left.5 This
is debatable. Richmond's belief that the object near the emperor's hand is part
of a "spear" carried by the adjacent soldier seems more plausible.6 Open to
debate, too, is that a sheathed dagger - perhaps the senior officer's parazonium
- is carried below his left armpit.7It should be noted that the emperor wears the
longer 'infantry-style' muscle cuirass with its additional abdominal protection.
But this should not lead us to suppose that Trajantravelled a pied. Indeed, the
emperor, mounted on horseback and leading a cavalry charge, wears the elongated version of the muscle cuirass on one of the four panels of the Great
Trajanic Frieze.8 While it seems reasonably clear that a man would not have
ridden a horse whilst he wore this unflared model of the Hellenistic muscle
cuirass, this did not deter Roman sculptors from depicting such armour in
equestrian scenes.9 As can be readily imagined, the additional abdominal
protection of this cuirass-type, which terminatesjust above the wearer's groin,
would have made riding an uncomfortable exercise. On Trajan's Column,
however, the emperor and his generals are almost always correctly depicted in
the shorter 'cavalry-style' version - even when dismounted.10Of interest, too,
M.P. Speidel, Riding for Caesar: The Roman Emperor's Horse Guards (Cambridge, MA
1994) 14.
6 Richmond, Trajan's Army (as in n. 1) 50.
7 Martial (14.32) makes reference to this weapon in an epigram entitled Parazonium:
militiae dec us hoc gratique erit omen honoris, / arma tribunicium cingere digna latus. It
is also seen in sculptural depictions of Roman officers; e.g. scene XXV of Trajan's
Column, where it carried by the officer second to the left of the emperor (see S.S. FrerelF.
Lepper, Trajan's Column: A New Edition of the Cic horius Plates [Brunswick Road, Glos.
and Wolfeboro NH 19881 pl. XX).
8 See A.-M. Leander Touati, The Great Trajanic Frieze: The Study of a Monument and of the
Mechanisms of Message Transmission in Roman (Stockholm 1987) pl. 1 1; G.M. Koeppel,
"Die historischen Reliefs der romischen Kaiserzeit Ill. Stadtromische Denkmaler unbekannter Bauzugehorigkeit aus trajanischer Zeit", BJ 185 (1985) Abb. 15 and notes pertaining to
figure 44 ("Berittener Kaiser") on 179. Examples of rider/cuirass combinations that defy
logic are found elsewhere. Horsemen wearing the infantry-style muscle cuirass are found
on battle sarcophagi from the late second century A.D. For some representations, see B.
Andreae, Art of Rome, trans. R.E. Wolf (New York 1977) figs 502-503.
9 Grossly flared versions of the longer muscle cuirass, which were obviously made for
cavalry use, have been found in a Hellenistic archaeological context. For a convenient
representation, see P. Connolly, Greece and Rome at War (Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1981)
56 (this drawing is a reproduction of a fourth-century example, now in Bari Museum).
Recovered examples all come from southern Italy but Connolly (58) notes that a flared
cuirass is "shown clearly" on the equestrian statue of Nonius Balbus the Younger, which
was found at Herculaneum and is now in the Museo Nazionale, Naples.
10 There is only one scene (LIV) in which the longer version appears, and this with a row of
plated pteryges (see Frere/Lepper, Trajan's Column [as in n. 71 pi. XXXIX).
5

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Trajan'sGuardat Adamklissi:Infantryor Cavalry?

479

is that metope XXVIII (6) shows what appears to be a mounted senior officer,
whose face has been badly eroded, riding down a Dacian foe. The equestrian
figure seems to wear a scale cuirass (not mail as one scholar has suggested)"l of
a similar cut to that worn by Trajan on metope XXXVI (32), a double-tiered
skirt of pteryges, and what appears to be a paludamentum trailing behind. This
combination is seen elsewhere.12 Given that the vignette closely resembles
contemporary victory coinage, and the scene of the emperor galloping over his
enemies on the Frieze, it would not be unreasonable to argue, as do Rossi and
others,13 that the officer may be Trajan himself.14
The identity of the emperor's two guards on the metope in question is not so
easy to divine. Let us first examine their appearance. Both men are equipped in
identical fashion. They carry large oval-shaped shields with no device, and
wear the mail cuirass or lorica hamata - the deeply drilled surface which is
usually indicative of this cuirass-style in Roman sculpture can be clearly seen
above the shields. Unfortunately, the size of the shields precludes a view of the
accoutrements worn over the cuirass, and, in particular, it is impossible to
determine the size of the sword. A gladius would suggest that the troops are
infantry, while the appearance of the longer spatha might indicate that they
11 Rossi, Reassessment(as in n. 1) 61-62. Individualscales, stitched in rows to a leather
jerkin, can be clearly seen on this metope. Strobel, Untersuchungen(as in n. 3) 38,
correctlyidentifies this cuirassas "Schuppenpanzer"
ratherthanKettenpanzer.
12 Aside from metope XXXVI (32) and imperialportraitson a handfulof coins, it was not
until the second half of the thirdcenturythatgeneralswere regularlyseen in a versionof
the lorica squamata.Manyof these cuirassesare incrediblytight-fitting,e.g. those on the
Great Ludovisi Sarcophagus,now found in the Museo Nazionale, Rome (see R.B.
Bandinelli, Rome: The Late Empire. Roman Art A.D. 200-400, trans. P. Green [New York

1971] pi. 54). Other examples, however, are of a rathermore expected shape, e.g. a
representationof the emperorBalbinus(A.D. 238) (B. Andreae,Art [as in n. 81 fig. 596),
and representationsof mounted hunterson sarcophagifrom the mid-thirdcentury (B.
Andreae,Art [as in n. 8] figs 588, 590). The cuirassof Balbinusand those of the hunters
are of the same size as the shortercavalryversion of the muscle cuirass.Worthyof note,
too, is thatthe late-Latinpoet Claudianmakesreferenceto Honoriusauro squameusat IV.
Cons. Hon. 523-524. On this theme, see M.B. Charles, "ImperialCuirasses in Latin
Verse: FromAugustusto the Fall of the West",AC 73 (2004) forthcoming.
13 Rossi, Trajan's Column (as in n. 1) 61; and id., "A Synoptic Outlook of Adamklissi
Metopes and Trajan'sColumnFrieze:Factualand FancifulTopics Revisited",Athenaeum 85 (1997) 480. Strobel, Untersuchungen(as in n. 3) 236, concurs. Florescu,Siegesdenkmal(as in n. 1) 490-491, citing earlier literature,calls the mounted figure "Idler
Kaiser".Cf. Richmond,Trajan'sArmy(as in n. 1) 48, who thinks that the figure is not
Trajanbut simply"anofficer".On this metope,see also Strobel,Untersuchungen(as in n.
3) 236 and n. 33.
14 BMC, Trajan833-836, pls. 31.2-31.5; RIC II, pi. 10, no. 183; and M. Kemkes, "Politische Propagandazur Zeit Trajansim Spiegel der Munzenund historischenReliefs", in
Schallmayer(ed.), Traian(as in n. 1) 129, Abb. 1. The emperorwears the infantry-style
muscle cuirasson both the coins and the Frieze.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

480

MICHAEL

B.

CHARLES

belong to a mounted unit - no compelling evidence exists to corroborate


Tacitus' assertion that the regular auxiliary infantry of his day, or at least a
portion, used the spatha. l5 The helmets, the surface of which has been ravaged
by time, have large neck-guards and are similar in appearanceto those worn by
other soldiers on the Adamklissi metopes. Their legs, like almost all the soldiers
on the Tropaeum, are covered byfeminalia.16 These items of clothing resemble
tight knee breeches and were probably fashioned from light and supple hide.
The presence or otherwise of facial hair is difficult to discern, such is the poor
condition of the metope. In any case, Roman soldiers on campaign, even
legionaries and Guardsmen, would not have been particularlyconcerned about
shaving regularly. One should also guard against assuming that non-Roman
soldiers, even Germans, would have always sported beard and moustache.
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the troops on the metope, however, is
their stature - they are much taller than the imperator. This element will be
discussed below.
Besides Florescu's simplistic identification of the two men as "Soldaten",17
various suggestions have been offered regarding the identity of these soldiers.
Most scholars who have made reference to metope XXXVI (32) believe that the
men in question are pedites, and this is what I have briefly postulated elsewhere.18 In one work, Rossi simply describes them as "infantry", and this
without any form of qualification. 19Richmond seems to concur, but he goes one
step furtherand claims, in his discussion of the Adamklissi metopes, that "very
tall infantry with massive helmets, oval shields and chain-mail tunics ... are
presumably praetorian guards: for it is they who regularly attend the emperor".20This view is perhaps shared by Watson, who identifies our men simply as

15 Tac. Ann. 12.35.3: et si auxiliaribus resisterent, gladiis ac pilis legionariorum, si huc


uerterent, spathis et hastis auxiliarium sternebantur. Arrian (Tact. 4.8, 43.3) calls the
Roman cavalry sword a a6rai0; and he also writes that this sword was 1saKpa Kai
nLXOTEia
(Tact. 4.8). Vegetius' anachronistic assertion that the principes and hastati used
spathae and semispathia (Epit. 2.15.4, 2.15.8), and that the triarii used semispathia (Epit.
2.16. 1), deserves little consideration, for he was writing at a time when longer swords had
been used by Roman infantry for perhaps more than two centuries. The orthography of
semispathia follows that of A. Onnerfors (ed.), Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus. Epitoma Rei Militaris, Biblioteca Teubneriana (Stuttgart 1995) ad lob.
16 This garment was often called bracae by earlier scholars, and may be equivalent to
Arrian's avacupike; (Tact. 34.7). See Charles, "Flavio-Trajanic miles" (as in n. 2) 691692; M. Simkins, The Roman Army from Hadrian to Constantine (London 1979) 32.
17 Florescu, Siegesdenkmal (as in n. 1) 496.
18 Charles, "Flavio-Trajanic miles" (as in n. 2) 676: "infantry".
19 Rossi, "Trajan's Column" (as in n. 1) 62. Cf. Rossi, "Reassessment" (as in n. 1) 63, where
they are tentatively assigned auxiliary status.
20 Richmond, Trajan's Army (as in n. 1) 48-49. Later, in his discussion of metope XXXVI

(32), he describesTrajan'sescort as "two guards"(50).

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Trajan'sGuardat Adamklissi:Infantryor Cavalry?

481

"guards".21The belief that the troops were Praetorian infantry seems to be


derived solely from their proximity to the emperor - they bear no insignia that
may be shown to relate to the cohortes praetorianae. On the other hand, Durry
held that "il serait imprudentde chercherdes pretorienssur les metopes d'AdamKilissi [sic]".22
The equipment worn by the soldiers is worthy of discussion. The oval
scutum is carried by men who have often been described as Praetorianinfantry
(such as those on the Louvre relief, the Cancelleria Relief A, and possibly the
Great TrajanicFrieze).23But other kinds of evidence, such as coins and perhaps
once again the Frieze, indicate that the Guard could also use the rectangular
shield.24 Indeed, apart from the possibility that paenula-wearing and ovalshield-carrying figures in scenes LXXXVI-LXXXVII are Guardsmen,25seem-

21 Watson,RomanSoldier (as in n. 1) 93, illustration21.


22 M. Durry,Les cohortespretoriennes(Paris 1938, repr. 1968) 218.
23 One of the two segmentata-wearerson the Frieze (i.e. those slabs re-usedon the Arch of
Constantine)carriesan oval shield, of which only one cornercan be seen; the otherbears
a convex rectangularscutum.See LeanderTouati,Frieze (as in n. 8) pls. 7.1, 21.2, 26.6.
The identity of these pedites is not certain, but they are almost certainly meant to
representcitizen soldiers. It should be noted that the cheek-pieces of their Attic-style
helmets, the appearanceof which seems to accord with artistic convention ratherthan
reality, are withoutthe scorpio emblem seen on many helmets of the Frieze (althoughit
must be added that the cheek-piece ornamentationof the figure closest to the viewer
[figure no. 22] is, as LeanderTouati, Frieze [as in n. 81 45, points out, "[u]nreadable").
Durry,Cohortespretoriennes(as in n. 22) 215, saw the two pedites as Praetorians,as did
Koeppel, Reliefs III (as in n. 8) 152, who thought that all the soldiers depicted in the
Frieze were Guardsmen.H.R. Robinson,The Armourof ImperialRome (London 1975)
184, held thatthey were legionaries,while P. Couissin,Les armes romaines(Paris 1926)
456, chose not to identify them. For a r6sum6of the propagandisticmessages contained
within the Frieze, see T. Holscher, "Bilder der Macht und Herrschaft",in NunnerichAsmus (ed.), Traian(as in n. 1) 140-141.
24 e.g. BMC,Caligula33, pl. 28.3, which bearsthe legendADLOCVCOH. Cf. BMC,Galba
249, pl. 58.8, also an adlocutioscene, which appearsto show soldiersequippedwith both
rectangularand oval scuta. I have commentedmoreextensivelyon these coins elsewhere,
see "Flavio-Trajanic
miles"(as in n. 2) 680-681. However,a coin almostidenticalto BMC,
Galba249 shows thatthe shieldof the soldieron the extremerightof the coin is not oval, as
it appearson the wom BMC example, but distinctlyhexagonal(see J.P.C. Kent, Roman
Coins [London1978]pl. 61, no. 213). As a horseappearsbehindthe bearerof this shield, it
is just possiblethatits carrieris meantto be an eques. A coin in the HunterCoin Cabinetis
similarto the BMCexamplein termsof its condition(see A.S. Robertson,RomanImperial
Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet I ILondon/Glasgow/New York 1962] pl. 28.81).

25 See Frere/Lepper,Trajan'sColumnlas in n. 7] pls. LXIII,LXI. On this possibility, which


was initially suggested by J.C.N. Coulston, "'Armedand Belted Men': The Soldiery in
Imperial Rome", in id./H. Dodge (eds.), Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal

City (Oxford 2000), 92, see M.B. Charles, "FurtherThoughts on the Flavio-Trajanic
miles: UnarmouredGuardsmenon the Column?",Latomus63 (2004) forthcoming.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

482

MICHAELB. CHARLES

ingly all the combatant citizen infantry on Trajan's Column, some of whom
must surely be Praetorians, carry the familiar tile-shaped scutum, even if this
shield does sometimes appearin the distorted form of a sub-oval.26On the other
hand, undecorated oval shields with a small, round umbo, though usually not
quite so large, are often associated with cavalry figures.27 The shape of the
soldiers' shields, then, offers no real indication of the figures' identity, and the
lack of any distinguishing device on the shield is a source of furtherfrustration.
The curvature or otherwise of the shields is perhaps more important. It is
generally assumed thatTrajaniclegionaries and Praetoriansused convex shields,
while flat shields were the mark of the auxiliary pedes or cavalryman. This
arrangement is preserved on Trajan's Column. Now the shield of the soldier
next to the emperor directly faces the viewer, for the umbo appears in the
middle. From this angle, it is difficult to assess whether the shield was meant to
be curved. Yet, on the shield of his comrade, the umbo appears markedly offcentre, which may indicate that the shield is supposed to be slightly convex. But
this cannot be said with any great certainty, and one cannot be sure if this
feature was intentional or the result of artistic laxity. That the cuirasses are
made of mail also helps us little. If Trajan's Column is used as a guide, we
would have little choice but to assign auxiliary status to the troops in question the oval shield, lorica hamata andfeminalia are all associated with the auxiliary
infantry on the Column's spiral frieze. Bennett seems to have favoured this line
of reasoning,28as does Rossi in one of his articles on the Tropaeum.29But it has
become increasingly clear that the rigid visual dichotomy employed on the
Column between a) legionaries and Praetorians,and b) regular auxiliary infan26

27

28
29

On the distorted appearance of many of the rectangular shields on the Column, see J.C.N.
Coulston, "The Value of Trajan's Column as a Source for Military Equipment", in C. van
Driel-Murray (ed.), Roman Military Equipment: The Sources of Evidence. Proceedings of
the Fifth Roman Military Equipment Conference, BAR International Series 476 (Oxford
1985) 33.
e.g. the shield of a trooper leading his horse, whom Speidel identifies as a "guardsman", is
seen on a Roman gravestone (see Speidel, Riding for Caesar las in n. 5] 64 and pl. 7).
Reconstructions of fragments of shield covers from Valkenburg (the Netherlands) are
oval in shape and have a central hole through which a small, circular umbo could project.
See W. Groenman-van Waateringe, "Valkenburg ZHI: Fabrica or Praetorium?", in V.A.
Maxfield/M.J. Dobson (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1989: Proceedings of the XVth
International Congress (Exeter 1991) 181-182 and fig. 29.2; C. van Driel-Murray/M.
Gechter, "Funde aus der fabrica der legio I Minervia am Bonner Berg", Rheinische
Ausgrabungen 23 (1983) 31-32 and fig. 7; and K. Dixon/P. Southern, The Roman
Cavalry: From the First to the Third Century AD (London 1992) 46-47 and figs 15-16.
Of course, it is impossible to tell if the shields protected by such covers belonged to
infantry or cavalry. Shield-covers from Bonner Berg may also have had an oval form. On
this, see van Driel-Murray/Gechter, Funde, 34-35 and fig. 9.
Bennett, Trajan (as in n. I) pi. 8A.
Rossi, Reassessment (as in n. 1) 63: "two ?auxiliaries with oval shields".

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Trajan's Guard at Adamklissi: Infantry or Cavalry?

483

try owes more to stylistic and political considerations than to any attempt to
reflect actuality. This is not to say, of course, that the dichotomy was not
broadly representative of the equipment used by some citizen troops and some
auxiliaries.
As the Adamklissi metopes demonstrate, legionaries, i.e. those soldiers
with convex scuta, could wear both mail and scale cuirasses. Thus we are
presented with a furtherimpasse. Finally, the paragnathides or cheek-pieces of
the badly weathered helmets, in addition to the shields, do not appear to carry
the scorpio emblem. Not a few scholars have seen the scorpion as a Praetorian
motif on other sculptural works (especially the Great TrajanicFrieze),30 though
this association, as Leander Touati points out, should not be beyond question.31
Other notable examples of the scorpio's appearance in a military context are a
private funeraryrelief from Puteoli (modem Pozzuoli),32 an example of Caligulan adlocutio coinage,33 and a coin depicting an adlocutio scene from the brief
reign of Galba.34Other blazons that can be associated with the Praetorians
include swirling vine-tendril motifs,35 and the familiar winged-thunderbolt
design with crescent moons and stars.36Still, even if the motifs discussed above

30 The device also appearson a shield of one of the mountedtroopers.See LeanderTouati,


Frieze (as in n. 8) pls. 16, 17.3.

31 On the associationof the scorpio motif with the Guard,see J.C.N. Coulston,"'Armedand
Belted Men"' (as in n. 25) 92; P. Couissin, Armes romaines (as in n. 23) 448; Durry,
Cohortespretoriennes(as in n. 22) 205, 213; H. Kahler,"Der Trajansbogenin Puteoli",
in G.E. Mylona (ed.), Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson on his Seventieth
Birthday I (St. Louis 1951) 432; L. Keppie, "The Praetorian Guard before Sejanus",
Athenaeum 84 (1996) 122-123; G.M. Koeppel, Reliefs III (as in n. 8) 152; Leander
Touati, Frieze (as in n. 8) 55-56; B. Rankov, The Praetorian Guard (London 1994) 26-

27, 55. Accordingto Suetonius(Tib. 5), the emperorTiberius,the second founderof the

32
33
34

35

Guard, was born under the zodiacal sign of Scorpio. A. Passerini, Le coorti pretorie
(Rome 1939), does not appear to comment on the scorpio emblem.
Kahler, "Trajansbogen" (as in n. 31) 432, writes that "[n]ach dem Skorpion im Rankenschmuck des Metallschildes durften die Soldaten Pratorianer sein".
For a clear reproduction of this coin (now in the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris), see Durry,
Cohortes pretoriennes (as in n. 22) planche III.A.
L. Breglia, Roman Imperial Coins. Their Art & Technique (London 1968) no. 26 (Museo
Nazionale, Naples). This is an excellent reproduction of the coin and the scorpio device
can be seen clearly on the shield of the soldier closest to the emperor.
This distinctive blazon can be seen on one of shields of the Louvre relief (that of the

soldier on the far right), the Puteoli relief, the shield of a Praetorianeques on the Great

36

Trajanic Frieze (Leander Touati, Frieze [as in n. 8] pl. 16), the Guardsmen's shields on
the base of the Antonine Column, and a funerary representation of a shield of a cavalry
trooper from the Eighth Cohort of the Guard (see CIL VI 2672).
This is seen on two of the shields of the Cancelleria Relief A, see F. Magi, I relieviflavi
del Palazzo della Cancellaria (Rome 1945). Astral devices also accompany private
funerary sculpture of members of the Sixth (CIL VI 2602) and Tenth cohorts (CIL VI

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

484

MICHAELB. CHARLES

did appear on the metope, they would hardly provide definite proof that the
soldiers were PraetorianGuardsmen.
M.P. Speidel presents the most surprising solution to the problem: he
identifies the troops of metope XXXVI (32) as "Bataui horsemen of Trajan's
Guard",37i.e. the equites singulares Augusti, most of whom were recruited in
Lower Germany. If this is so, they may even be hastiliarii, picked members of
the horse guard who perhaps began to provide the imperial field-escort from
some point in Trajan's reign (this duty had previously been the task of the
speculatores).38Thoughts offered by a military scholar of the calibre of Speidel
can never be lightly dismissed, and he defends his belief by stating that their
horses "must be nearby, for in the field the emperor always rode on horseback".39 Instead of directing his attention to the equipment of the men, he
focuses on the size of the two soldiers, which he thinks must point to a
Germanic origin. Caesar, for one, referred to the mirifica corpora of his
German horse (the equites Germani).40Tacitus expresses similar thoughts, as
does Strabo, who asserts that the Germans are even larger than the Gauls.41But
the artistic merit of the metopes of the Tropaeum Traiani is slight, and the
unusual form of the soldiers in question may not necessarily be intentional.42
Roman art does not always accord with the laws of perspective, and the
Adamklissi metopes, it must be admitted, do represent the ruderend of provin-

2742). The significanceof this is debatable,especially as the convex scuutaof two soldiers
on metope XXXII (28) of the TropaeumTraianishow both thunderbolts(withoutwings)
and five-pointed stars. Some have tentatively assumed, presumablyfrom the shieldblazons, thatthese men, too, are Praetorians:e.g. Rossi, "Reassessment"(as in n. 1) 63:
"Praetorians,probably";Strobel,Untersuchungen(as in n. 3) 235, n. 23: "Pratorianer?".
But Florescu,Siegesdenkmal(as in n. 1) 493, merely identifies them as "zwei Romer".
Thatstarsare also foundon the shields of some segmentata-wearerson Trajan'sColumn,
wherewe are generallyunableto tell which troopsare meantto be Guardsmenandwhich
are legionaries,also complicatesthe matter.
37

Speidel, Riding for Caesar (as in n. 5) 14.

38 Speidel, Ridingfor Caesar (as in n. 5) 35, 43-45. It must be admittedthat there is no


literaryevidence for hastiliarii in Trajan'sreign,but Speidel's argumentseems plausible
and deservesconsideration.
39 Speidel,Ridingfor Caesar (as in n. 5) 14. If the soldiersaredismountedcavalrytroopers,
it could also be suggestedthatthe soldiersare Praetorianequites. Still, it shouldbe noted
that the reliefs of the GreatTrajanicFrieze seem to associate hexagonal-shapedshields
with this unit.Of course,this, too, is open to some debate,and theoriesaboundregarding
the identificationof the equestrianfigureson the Frieze.
40 Caes. B.G. 1.39. 1.
41 Tac. Germ.4.2; Strab.7.1.2.
42 It shouldbe notedthatone featureof metopeXXXVI (32) defies the laws of perspective.
Forexample,the soldiernext to Trajan,fromthe positionof his feet, clearlystandsfurther
in the foregroundthan the emperor.Yet the left armof the emperorobscuresthe righthandedge of his guard'sshield. This shouldnot be possible.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Trajan's Guard at Adamklissi: Infantry or Cavalry?

485

cial relief-sculpture. Despite this, Speidel's argument is compelling from a


purely historical perspective. The emperor was accompanied by his horse guard
when on campaign; hence, the emperor, it follows, should be accompanied by
such troops on the metope in question. Still, such an assertion remains purely
speculative, for the two soldiers give no real indication that they belong to a
cavalry unit. In fact, the apparent curvature of one of the shields is hardly
consistent with Speidel's proposition - Roman cavalry shields are almost
always flat. Another non-cavalry feature is that they do not wear the rather
ostentatiously tied scarf that characterises Roman horsemen on other reliefs.43
Of course, infantry were also able to wear a scarf to reduce the chafing effect of
armour on the neck (though the ends are often tucked within the cuirass), but
sculptural depictions of hamata-wearing cavalry without focalia are uncommon.
As far as I am aware, no one has yet compared the soldiers in question with
other troops on the metopes who wear or carry the same equipment, i.e. helmet,
lorica hamata and oval scutum. On metope XXXIII (14) we find three such
soldiers standing in a file, and poised for combat at close-quarters (fig. 2). Their
shields, which appear to be at least partially convex, are carried behind their
backs. But it is clear from the exposed outline of the soldiers' scuta that they are
of the same shape as those on metope XXXVI (32). Of especial interest is that
the swords of the three men can be easily seen by the viewer. Rather than
longed-bladed spathae, the swords are short-bladed 'legionary' gladii. Thus it
seems most fitting to suppose that the men in metope XXXIII (14) are infantry.
Another soldier who carries the requisite equipment appears in metope XXXVII
(34) (fig. 3).44 In his encounter with afalx-wielding opponent, he brandishes a
sword somewhat longer than those seen in the metope discussed above (note,
too, the very wide scabbard). The significance of the sword's length is unclear.
It may be explained by technical deficiency on the part of the artisan, or,
alternatively, that some men in Dacia felt that they needed to match the long
sickled-shaped sword of the enemy with a blade of similar dimensions. The
former option, however, seems the more likely. Yet it would appear, from the
context of the metope, that the Roman soldier is an infantryman. Two other
unmounted figures who conform to our criteria are seen in metope XLI (36), the
central portion of which has been lost. Only the top of the soldiers' oval shields

43 e.g. the beckoning scouts and those pursuingthe fully armouredSarmatianRoxolani


cavalry in scenes XXXI and XXXVII of Trajan'sColumn (see Frere/Lepper,Trajan's
Column[as in n. 7] pls. XXIIIandXXVIIIrespectively).Scarvesarenot as noticeableon
the cavalryof the Frieze(the ends of thefocalia aretuckedbehindthe soldiers' cuirasses),
thoughthey are again prominenton the laterColumnof MarcusAurelius,wherethey are
also worn by the infantry.
44 The shield used by this man, however, has a slightly more hexagonalshape. Again, it is
difficult to tell if this was intentionalor otherwise.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

486

MICHAEL

B.

CHARLES

Fig. 2. One of three identical soldiers from metope XXXIII (14).

Fig. 3. A Roman soldier from metope XXXVII (34).

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Trajan'sGuardat Adamklissi:Infantryor Cavalry?

487

is extant, and it would appearthat both men are about to plunge or hurl weapons
of indeterminatenature (hastae?) into, or against, the enemy. While the metope
is too badly damaged to draw firm conclusions, there is no evidence to suggest
that the two hamata-wearers are not infantry.
Pertinent, too, is a brief survey of the equipment worn by equestrian troops
on the metopes at Adamklissi. Metope V (7) need not be considered, for the
eques wears the lorica squamata. Metopes III (3), IV (4), VI (5) and VII (30)
are very badly worn, and one hesitates to deduce much from such poor material.
Still, that the shields of the cavalrymen in metopes IV (4) and VI (5) - in
addition to those on the ratherbetter preserved metopes I (1) and II (2) - have
markedly square ends is of signal importance (fig. 4).45 Although the weapons
depicted in some of the cavalry metopes are difficult if not impossible to
discern, the offensive arms in the two better preserved examples are of hasta
size. Note that the length of the weapons in metopes I (1) and 11 (2) can be
judged from the remnants of the badly eroded spear-tips in front of the horses'
chests. Shafted cavalry weapons of the age, which were often dual-purpose and
took the form of hastae and lanceae,46 are never particularly long. They
certainly do not approach the size of the contus used by heavy shock-cavalry
(i.e. the cataphractarii and later the clibanarii)47 from the reign of Hadrian

45 Cavalryshields of a narrow,hexagonal shape are seen elsewhere, most notably on the


GreatTrajanicFrieze (slabs III and VIII).
46 Representationsof equiteswho carrymultipleshafted-weapons(i.e. the gravestoneof Ti.
ClaudiusMaximus,AE 1969/70, no. 583) indicatethatsuch weaponswere probablyused
as tela. For an accessible photographof the relief, see M.P. Speidel, "The Captorof
Decebalus:A New InscriptionfromPhilippi",JRS 60 (1970) pls. XIII, XV. 1. In addition,
Arrian'sTactica (chaptersXXXVI-XLIII) provides unequivocalevidence that Roman
cavalry were trained to throw missile weapons. On this, see R.W. Davies, "Fronto,
Hadrianand the RomanArmy",Latomus27 (1968) 88-91. See also Joseph. B.J. 3.96,
wherethe authorassertsthatthe Romancavalryused a covTo; (obviously shorterthanthe
contus used by the Sarmatian-stylecataphracts)and threeor more "darts"(dcovre;) in a
quiverslung beside them;CIL VIII 18042, in variousfragments(= ILS 2487) ILS 9134;
9135, and 9135a, all from the reign of Hadrian.Fronto(Ad VerumImp. 2.1.22) provides
the following criticism of the Syrian cavalry: haud multi uibrantis hastas, pars maior sine
ui et uigore tamquam lanc>eas iacere (text of M. Cornelii Frontonis Epistulae, Bibli-

otheca Teubneriana,ed. M.P.J.van den Hout ILeipzig 1988] 128, lines 15-16). Finally,
the elder Pliny was supposedto have writtena one-volumeessay entitledDe laculatione
Equestri (Plin. Ep. 3.5.3).

47 These were heavily armouredlancers.Theircontus, thoughnormallycarriedby the right


hand in transit, was wielded by both hands in combat (this, of course, would have
precludedthe use of a shield). See Bishop/Coulston,RomanMilitaryEquipment(as in n.
3) 109, 111. The lack of stirrups,which meantthatthe cataphractariiandclibanariicould
not rise fromtheirsaddles,probablypreventedthe weaponfrombeing used like the lance
of mediaeval knights. On the equites cataphractarii,see A.E. Negin, "SarmatianCataphracts as Prototypes for Roman equites cataphractarii", JRMES 9 (1998) 65-75.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

488

MICHAELB. CHARLES

-.-

..
Fig. 4. MetopeII (2). A Romancavalryman.
onwards.Whatmay addsome slightsupportto Speidel'sview, then,is thatthe
shaftedweaponscarriedby the equites in metopes I (1) and II (2) are of a
similarsize to those employedby the unmountedhamata-wearersdiscussed
above.Forthe purposeof comparison,one shouldnotethe lengthof the spearif it is indeeda spear- carriedby the soldiernextto Trajan.Whatmaybe the tip
appearsto the immediaterightof the carrier'shead,while the buttappearsat
calf-lengthbetweenthe emperor'slegs. Such a length suggeststhe dual-purpose hasta that is of a comparablesize to the weaponsseen in some of the
equestrianmetopes.48Of course,the crudenatureof the metopesmakessuch
analysisa hazardousexercise.
What,then, can one deduce from the above?A wealth of speculationis
rarelyconduciveto firm conclusions.And, in any case, it cannotbe assumed
automaticallythat the artisan(or artisans)who createdthis particularmetope
wantedto portraymembersof any specific unit in companywith the emperor.
Onceagain,it is pertinentto notethatthereappearsto be no attemptto associate
the two men with any particularcohors, legio or ala via shield blazons or
48 Bishop/Coulston,RomanMilitaryEquipment(as in n. 3) 69, commenton the difficulty
involved in interpretingterminologysuch as hasta, lancea, uerutumandspiculum,which
are often used "interchangeably"
by Romanwriters.

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Trajan's Guard at Adamklissi: Infantry or Cavalry?

489

decorative motifs. Indeed, a dearth of such regalia characterises many of the


representationsof soldiers on the Adamklissi metopes, from infantry to cavalry
(in fact, we only see the reverse of equestrian shields on the metopes). Our need
to identify the men, or indeed the military figures in any sculptural relief, is
often more or less psychological. It is the product of the historian's natural
desire to sort, characterise, and verify what has been postulated elsewhere.
Today, rigorous exactitude is expected in anything that is of a supposedly
documentary nature. Yet it is unduly facile to assume that the ancients would
have shared our aesthetic values, at least on this particularpoint. We know from
other evidence that the person of the emperor Trajan, when on campaign, was
guarded by an echelon of men from different units. His most immediate form of
protection, of course, would have come from members of the highly mobile
equites singulares Augusti (perhaps hastiliarii?). Yet the much slower infantry
of the Praetorian cohortes would never have been too far away, and the
campaigning emperor did not regularly stray too far from legionary contact. Let
us not forget, too, the presence of the equites praetoriani. Quite clearly, the
historian cannot learn anything new about the imperial escort from an identification of the soldiers on metope XXXVI (32) of the Tropaeum Traiani.
To conclude, one may attempt to identify the men from two very different
perspectives. From the historical perspective, the men should be Bataui cavalry
troopers, as Speidel contends. These men, in the field and often elsewhere, were
undoubtedly the most 'intimate' members of the imperial escort. From the other
perspective, that of the military equipment historian, it seems safer to conclude
that Trajan's guard on metope XXXVI (32) are Roman infantry of an unidentified - and unidentifiable - unit. The soldiers' accoutrements of war offer few
specific clues about their identity, and the lack of any exclusive cavalry items
remains significant. The soldier's horses may be tied up elsewhere, like that of
Trajan, but their absence in the metope does provide a testing obstacle to
Speidel's view.
The University of Queensland, Brisbane

Michael B. Charles

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:17:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S-ar putea să vă placă și