FOOTNOTES:
[311] Josephus, Bell. Iud. iii. 5.
[312] He was not, however, an ‘unmilitary historian’ in the sense that, for instance, Ephoros was. Ephoros made elaborate accounts of military operations an important feature of his work, although he was quite lacking in military knowledge (Polybius, xii. 25); Tacitus never pretends to concern himself with more than the moral and social aspects of war. The same attitude may be observed both in Dio and Herodian (ii. 15, 6). This attitude was perfectly justifiable, since there existed, as we learn from this passage in Herodian and from Lucian (De Hist. Conscrib.), a technical literature which would probably satisfy our needs. That we do not possess it is the fault, not of Tacitus and Dio, but of the Middle Ages.
[313] This was still the case at Argentorate in 357; cf. Ammianus, xvi. 12.
[314] Tac. Ann. ii. 16.
[315] Tac. Ann. ii. 52 ‘Legio medio, leves cohortes duaeque alae in cornibus locantur’.
[316] Tac. Ann. xiii. 38 ‘Socias cohortes et auxilia regum pro cornibus, medio sextam legionem constituit’. The defensive formation described in xiii. 40 is slightly different, since the legions in the centre formed a square.
[317] Tac. Ann. xiv. 34 ‘Igitur legionarius frequens ordinibus, levis circum armatura, conglobatus pro cornibus eques adstitit’.
[318] Tac. Hist. iii. 21 ‘Cohortes auxiliorum in cornibus, latera ac terga equite circumdata’.
[319] The legionaries were to occupy the centre, the auxiliary infantry high ground on the wings, the cavalry to wait in the rear.
[320] Dio, lxxiv. 7.
[321] Tac. Agr. 35 ‘Legiones pro vallo stetere, ingens victoriae decus citra Romanum sanguinem bellandi, et auxilium, si pellerentur’. It was not necessary for Tacitus to invent this not very creditable excuse. The tactics are those adopted with equal success against a Highland army by the Duke of Cumberland at the battle of Culloden in 1746. The same idea of checking the impetus of a Celtic charge by successive obstacles has often been suggested as the reason for the seven ditches which protect the exposed side of the fort at Whitley Castle, and the lilia at Rough Castle on the Antonine Wall.
[322] They are particularly noticeable in the battle shown on Cichorius, Die Traiansäule, Pl. 45, and to judge from the column, the auxilia did more than their usual share of fighting in this war.
[323] In spite of the boasting of Antonius Primus, the achievements of the Pannonian cavalry in 69 were limited to a reckless advance followed by a disorderly retreat. Cf. Tac. Hist. iii. 2 with iii. 16. In the second century, however, we find heavy cavalry, contarii, who must have been intended for shock tactics.
[324] For Haltern see Schuchhardt, Führer durch die Ausgrabungen von Haltern. It is, however, perhaps incorrect to limit the garrison to auxiliaries: for Hofheim cf. Ritterling, Das frührömische Lager bei Hofheim, 1912. It was occupied from about 40 to 60.
[325] See Pelham, Essays in Roman History, p. 191.
[326] e.g. Friedberg has an area of (roughly) 10 acres, Okarben of 14, Heddernheim of 13, and Kesselstadt of 35. A cohort of 500 infantry was usually allowed about 5 acres.
[327] See Macdonald, The Roman forts at Barr Hill, pp. 11-15; Curle, A Roman Frontier-post, pp. 29, 349.
[328] xi. 6344 ‘P. Cornelio P. f. Sab(atina) Cicatriculae prim(o) pil(o) bis, praefect(o) equit(um), praef(ecto) clas(sis), praef(ecto) cohortium quattuor civium Romanor(um) in Hispania, trib(uno) mil(itum)’.
[329] iii. 14147².
[330] W. D. Z. xxi. 186, where this theory of the first-century frontier system is further developed.
[331] See Pelham, op. cit., p. 199. The forts on the North British frontier range in area from 2½ to 5½ acres, the largest (Amboglanna) being designed to hold a cohors miliaria peditata. The German forts seem to have been on a rather larger scale, and ran up to 15 acres, which is the area allowed at Aalen to an ala miliaria. It is not meant, of course, that forts of this type did not exist in the first century, but it was not until the reign of Hadrian that the dispersion of the auxilia in separate units was adopted as a general policy.
[332] Cf. iii. 3385 ‘(Commodus) ripam omnem burgis a solo extructis item praesidis per loca opportuna ad clandestinos latrunculorum transitus oppositis munivit’. This is from the Danube frontier.
[333] Historia Augusta, Vita Hadriani, 12 ‘In plurimis locis in quibus barbari non fluminibus sed limitibus dividuntur, stipitibus magnis in modum muralis saepis funditus iactis atque conexis barbaros separavit’.
[334] The best recent account of this frontier in English is Pelham’s essay, ‘The Roman Frontier in Germany,’ in the work already cited.
[335] Recent researches have, however, made it very doubtful whether a turf wall ever preceded the stone wall along the whole line.
[336] For this wall see the admirable account by Dr. George Macdonald, The Roman Wall in Scotland, Glasgow, 1911.
[337] The best description of the internal arrangements of a mile-castle is given by Mr. F. G. Simpson, in the Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Archaeological Society, vol. xi, New Series.
[338] The German Limes-Commission has not yet published its report on these works and the course of the frontier line in general. On the Walldürn-Welzheim section, which was built by Pius, the towers are at intervals of from 250 to 400 metres. Pelham, op. cit., p. 204.
[339] The view with which I find myself in most agreement is that of Delbrück, Geschichte der Kriegskunst, ii. 155-60.
[340] See Pelham, op. cit., p. 201 and appendix.
[341] The torches which project from the upper stories of the block-houses represented on the Trajan column have often been noted as indicating some method of fire-signalling.
[342] The palisade was not, of course, a board fence which could be torn down in a few minutes. It was made of oak-trees split in halves and bedded in a ditch four and a half feet deep. See Pelham, op. cit., p. 200. Some idea of its appearance can be gathered from the representation at the beginning of the reliefs on the Marcus column.
[343] Oman, Art of War in the Middle Ages, p. 209. He quotes Nicephorus Περὶ παραδρομῆς πολέμου.
[344] The stone wall on the Raetian frontier is of very inferior construction.
[345] The garrisons were: at Netherby, the Cohors I Aelia Hispanorum M. E., vii. 954, 963, 964, 965; at Bremenium, the Cohors I Fida Vardullorum M. E. and exploratores, vii. 1030, 1043; at Habitancium, the Cohors I Vangionum M. E., exploratores and Raeti Gaesati 1002, 1003. The latest inscription at Netherby dates from the reign of Severus Alexander; at Bremenium, the most advanced of the Dere Street forts, from the reign of Gordian III.
[346] iii. 600. See [Appendix].
[347] Cf. Historia Augusta, Vita Marci, 12 ‘Dum Parthicum bellum geritur, natum est Marcomannicum, quod diu eorum, qui aderant, arte suspensum est’.
[348] The only changes which we know of are that Legio V Macedonica was transferred from Moesia Inferior to Dacia in the reign of Marcus and that Legio III Augusta was sent by Gordian III as a punishment from Africa to the Rhine, whence, however, it returned in 253. Cagnat, L’Armée romaine d’Afrique, pp. 156-61.
[349] The date of this section of the Notitia is disputed, but it can hardly be earlier than the end of the third century. The diplomata are xxix (98), xxxii (103), xxxiv (105), xliii (124), lv (ante 138), lvii (146).
[350] Cf. D. ii and iii. 3664, D. lviii and iii. 3331, and D. lx and iii. 11333. These regiments may of course have been temporarily absent, but the evidence is fairly continuous in each case. The Cohors V Lucensium et Callaecorum, for example, appears on diplomata for 60, 84, 85, 133, 138/48, 148, 149 and 154.
[351]1 I. G. R. R. i. 1348, ib. 1363, iii. 14147², D. xv, iii. 14147¹. In the last, which dates from 39, the number of the cohort is not given, and possibly another in the same series is meant.
[352] For the date of the Egyptian section of the Notitia see my article, The Garrison of Egypt, in the account of the excavations at Karanóg by the Eckley B. Cox Junior Expedition to Nubia published by the University Museum, Philadelphia.
[353] iii. 4379 (3 Ulpii, 2 Aelii), 4360 (Aelius), 4369, 4370 (Aurelii), 11081.
[354] iii. 1371, 1372, 1374, 1379; A. E. 1903. 66.
[355] vii. 818 (Severus Antoninus), 819 (Gordian III), 820 (Postumus), 823 (Tetricus). Another inscription (808) dates from the reign of Maximin.
[356] Tac. Ann. iv. 47; id. Hist. ii. 22.
[357] Cf. Dio’s remarks on the impression made by the provincial legionaries in Rome in the reign of Septimius Severus, lxxiv. 2. The following sketch applies only to the troops on the Western frontiers, concerning whose life we have considerable evidence. The locally raised troops in the East started as a rule at a higher level of culture, but possibly a similar advance was made by Trajan’s regiments of Paphlagonians, Galatians, and Arabians, although here Hellenization, not Romanization, was of course the goal.
[358] For the importance of Mithras in the army, cf. Cumont, Les Mystères de Mithra. Toutain, Les Cultes païens dans l’Empire romain, cc. ii and iv, gives a classified list of the inscriptions of Mithra and Dolichenus.
[359] H. Jacobi, Führer durch das Römerkastell Saalburg, 1908, gives a summary of the latest results.
[360] Excavations so far have been confined to the fort itself, in which the buildings were in an exceedingly good state of preservation, and the Mithraeum.
[361] xiii. 7800 ‘Petronius Athenodorus prae(fectus) coh(ortis) I Fl(aviae) horologium ab horis intermissum et vetustate colabsum suis inpendis restituit’. The date is 218.
[362] Herodian iii. 8, 5.
[363] _Rheinisches Museum_, xlviii. 616 ff.
[364] viii. 18067.
[365] _A. E._ 1910. 75.
[366] Cagnat, _L’Armée romaine d’Afrique_, pp. 380-3 and 505-7.
[367] e.g. D. iii (64), a wife, son, and daughter; D. xcviii (105), a wife, son, and two daughters; D. xxxvii (110), three sons. See above, [p. 32].
[368] iii. 3271. The approximate date of the inscription is sufficiently indicated by the names employed.
[369] This very comprehensive dedication comes from the shrine of Mandoulis, the source of many military inscriptions.
[370] The possibility that cives had already been admitted into the auxiliary regiments before this date has already been discussed. See above, [p. 33].
[371] iii. 10316 and _A. E._ 1910. 144.
[372] The campaigns between Severus and his rivals (193-7) were fought out by vexillations; hence at the end of the war we find all the regiments on both sides, so far as they can be traced, in their old quarters.
[373] Historia Augusta, Vita Alex. Sev. 58 ‘Sola, quae de hostibus capta sunt, limitaneis ducibus et militibus donavit, ita ut eorum essent, si heredes eorum militarent, nec umquam ad privatos pertinerent, dicens attentius eos militaturos, si etiam sua rura defenderent’. The theory of the self-sufficiency of each provincial garrison could not be more clearly expressed.
SECTION IV
ARMS AND ARMOUR
The chief sources of information are the sculptured reliefs on the sepulchral monuments of the soldiers themselves and on the columns of Trajan and Marcus. Excavations have also yielded specimens, very badly damaged in most cases, of the weapons and armour in use at different periods. The literary authorities contain little that is valuable, with the exception of Arrian’s description of cavalry uniform and equipment in his own day.[374]
On sepulchral monuments of cavalry soldiers dating from the first century[375] the deceased is usually represented on horseback in the act of spearing a fallen enemy. It may be assumed, therefore, that the armour and weapons represented are those actually used in warfare, in other words that these men are in ‘service uniform’. At this period the cavalry uniform consisted of a tunic, breeches reaching a little below the knee, both probably of leather, and the caligae or military boots. Over the tunic was worn a leather breastplate with extra shoulder-pieces to guard against a down cut. Metal breastplates however, although rare, are not unknown. Scale armour is worn by a trooper of the Ala Longiniana represented on an early Rhenish relief,[376] and also appears on two African reliefs of early date representing equites of the Cohors VI Dalmatarum.[377] The shield is usually an oblong with the longer sides slightly curved, but occasionally an angle in these longer sides transforms it into an elongated hexagon. This shield was borrowed from the Celtic or Teutonic tribes, as is shown by its frequent appearance on the reliefs in the hands of the fallen barbarian. To judge from these reliefs it measured about one foot by three, and was probably of wood covered with leather.
The helmet, which was of metal, had a projection behind to cover the neck in the manner of the English cavalry helmet of the seventeenth century. It was also furnished with an extra band of metal or a peak in front to protect the forehead and large cheek-pieces which clasped over the chin. On the monument of a trooper of the Ala Noricorum,[378] a very good example of this class, the cheek-pieces are highly ornamented and the top of the helmet is ridged to represent hair. The crest does not appear, probably because it was not worn on active service.[379] It is equally absent from the battle-scenes of the Trajan column, although the ring to which it was fastened is shown. Some fine plumes are, however, represented on the helmet of a standard-bearer of the Ala Petriana on a British relief, which probably dates from the end of the first century.[380]
The long broadsword or spatha, the characteristic weapon of the auxiliaries,[381] which was probably, like the shield, of Celtic origin,[382] was worn on the right side suspended from the left shoulder by a sword belt (balteus). The hilt ended in a large knob-shaped pommel, and the sheath was often highly ornamented.
The lance with which the soldier strikes his prostrate adversary appears to have had a shaft about six feet long and a broad head. Two more spears often appear on these sepulchral reliefs in the hands of an attendant in the background. These are probably the throwing spears which were carried, according to Josephus,[383] in a quiver on the back, and could not therefore, owing to the position of the rider, be represented in their proper place. Concerning the horses one can say little except that they can hardly have been so small as they are represented. The saddle has a high pommel and cantle and is sometimes covered with a fringed cloth, and the junctures of the harness are ornamented with metal plates (phalerae). Like all ancient cavalry the auxiliaries rode without stirrups.
From these reliefs, therefore, we can construct a fairly complete picture of the auxiliary cavalryman of the pre-Flavian period. His equipment as he appears on the column of Trajan is essentially the same, except that he now wears a shirt of chain-mail over his tunic instead of the leather breastplate, and that his shield has changed from an oblong to a narrow oval.[384] It is hardly necessary now to defend the accuracy of the column in matters of detail, but it may be mentioned that there is further testimony for each of these changes.[385]
Chain-mail appears on the Adam Klissi reliefs and is mentioned by Arrian,[386] and the oval shield is shown on a Rhenish relief dating from the end of the first century.[387] The varied scenes represented on the column enable one also to notice further points, such as the manner in which the shield is slung at the side of the saddle when troops are on the march,[388] and the use of the military cloak (sagum) which hung down the back and could not therefore appear on the sepulchral reliefs.[389]
In addition to this service uniform there was, as Arrian’s description shows, a sort of parade uniform in which the mail shirts were replaced by brightly coloured tunics, and lighter shields and spears were carried than those used in war.[390] It was with this uniform and on ceremonial occasions that some of the soldiers wore those curious helmets with a mask decorating the face of which several specimens have been found.[391] The fine scale armour which has been found at Newstead and elsewhere probably also formed part of this parade uniform. It is, indeed, always worn by the Praetorians on the Marcus column, but the auxilia still appear in chain-mail as on the column of Trajan.[392] Specially elaborate suits of this armour were, however, worn by the regiments of catafractarii who appear in the army list in the second century.[393] The last change which we can trace was the alteration of the shape of the shield from oval to round, which probably took place in the third century. An eques of the Cohors I Thracum is represented on a Danubian sepulchral monument with a shield of this form,[394] and the contemporary reliefs on the arch of Constantine show that it was practically universal a century later.
The equipment described above was worn by the majority of the auxiliary cavalry, but it was by no means universal. The horse archers, if one may judge by a soldier of the Ala I Augusta Ituraeorum represented on a Danubian relief, carried no shield, and possibly no body armour, and wore a leather cap in place of a helmet.[395] Arrian also mentions that some regiments carried a specially heavy spear (κοντός), and devoted themselves to shock tactics.[396] The numeri, too, did not adopt the Roman uniform, but kept to their own dress and weapons. The Moors of Lusius Quietus are represented on the column wearing nothing but a short tunic; their weapons consist of a spear and a small round buckler (cetra), and they ride their horses without saddle or bridle, guiding them simply by a halter round the neck.[397] The regiments of Sarmatae enrolled by Marcus also presumably wore their national costume, which is perhaps represented in a fragmentary relief in the Chester Museum.[398]
The equipment of the auxiliary infantry in the first century is more difficult to determine. Not only did the soldiers of the cohorts erect fewer sculptured monuments than the cavalry troopers, but on these reliefs the deceased is not represented in the act of fighting, so that we cannot be certain that he appears in full service uniform. One of the best of the early monuments is the tombstone of a soldier of Cohors IV Dalmatarum from the Rhine.[399] The deceased is dressed in a short tunic, which is looped up at the sides so as to hang down in front in a series of folds. The sagum covers his shoulders and hangs down his back. A long spatha and a short dagger are suspended from two waist-belts (cingula) at his right and left side respectively. He has no body armour except a kind of sporran composed of strips of metal which extends from the middle of his belt to the bottom of his tunic. His legs are bare, and he wears no helmet. In his right hand he holds two long spears and in his left an oblong rectangular shield, which is not curved like the legionary scutum but flat as a board. On two other reliefs a soldier of the Cohors I Pannoniorum[400] and an archer of the Cohors I Sagittariorum[401] are represented in a similar costume, except that the Pannonian wears the paenula instead of the sagum, and that the archer carries a bow and arrows in place of the shield and spears.
If these soldiers are fully equipped they have surprisingly little defensive armour, but on other monuments, notably those of a private of the Cohors II Raetorum,[402] and a standard-bearer of the Cohors V Asturum,[403] a leather breastplate appears similar to that worn by the cavalry at this period. On the Trajan column too, the auxiliary infantry are furnished like the cavalry with metal helmet and chain-mail shirt and wear the short tunic and bracae.[404] Professor von Domaszewski would like to see in all this a development of the auxiliaries from light into heavy infantry,[405] and it is true that in his account of the German campaigns in the reign of Tiberius, Tacitus emphasizes their character as light-armed troops.[406] But even on the Trajan column they are still lighter armed than the legionaries, and the evidence of the monuments is far from decisive. The tombstones of legionaries of the same period represent them wearing a leather breastplate, although there is no reason to suppose that the so-called lorica segmentata was not yet in use. On the whole it seems safer to fall back on the hypothesis that on some of these monuments the deceased is represented in a parade uniform with which, as in the case of that described by Arrian, the breastplate was not worn. The tunic with its elaborate folds may also form part of this costume, since we know from the cavalry reliefs that the short leather tunics and bracae were already in use.
The Trajanic reliefs show several varieties of uniforms in addition to the ordinary type described above. The flying column which the emperor leads down the Danube includes men who wear, instead of the ordinary helmet, an animal’s skin arranged over the head and shoulders in the manner usually confined to standard-bearers, and others whose helmets are of a curious Teutonic pattern.[407] These may belong to regular cohorts which had been allowed to retain something of their national costume, but a barbarian who appears in this scene and elsewhere clad only in long loose breeches and a sagum, and whose chief weapon is a knotted club, must represent a numerus. Others of these irregular regiments are probably represented by the archers clad in long tunics and pointed caps or wearing helmet and shirt of scale armour who appear in one or two scenes.[408] They are certainly to be distinguished from the archers of the cohortes sagittariorum, who appear in a uniform which only differs from that of the ordinary auxiliary infantry in the absence of the shield.[409] The most exceptional uniform is that of the slingers, who are dressed simply in tunics with no armour but a shield.[410] Cichorius[411] wishes to recognize in them men from the Balearic Islands, but although the Baleares were employed by the Republic we have no inscriptions of a Cohors Balearum under the Empire. Moreover, if there existed cohorts of slingers with this distinctive uniform we should expect to find cohortes funditorum or libritorum on the analogy of the cohortes sagittariorum. It appears, on the contrary, from a passage in Hadrian’s speech to the African army that slinging formed part of the general training of all the auxilia.[412] Like the cavalry, the auxiliary infantry are represented on the Marcus column in a uniform essentially the same as that worn eighty years previously, and no further developments can be traced. The most striking fact which emerges from this inquiry is the general uniformity of the equipment of nine-tenths of the auxiliary regiments in the second century. We learn from casual references in Tacitus that this uniformity had always been the ideal of the Roman War Office,[413] and from the military point of view there was doubtless much to recommend it.
It has, however, more significance if we regard it as one phase in that extension of a uniform material culture through at any rate the western half of the Empire which marks the first and second centuries.