RomanArmyTalk
Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? (/showthread.php?tid=16219)

Pages: 1 2

Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - The Alexandrian - 12-19-2009

Is there any evidence for auxiliary-grade Roman infantry using the rectangular scutum that is iconic of the legionaries? Thanks :wink:

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Peroni - 12-20-2009

The term 'scutum' could mean any shield, but I think I know what you mean...

Yes, albeit contentious, there is an auxiliary soldier depicted on Trajan's Column carrying a curved rectangular shield. He wears the mail and short trousers of the auxilia. There is also another auxiliary who has a curved oval shield. The soldier with the rectangular shield has a circular shield boss - legionaries on the column have square or rectangular ones.
[Image: trajansshields.jpg]

There are also fragments of a shield cover (tegimen) from Roomberg with the designation Cohors XV V (cR) which is wide enough to have come from a curved rectangular shield. Although this unit was a citizen cohort raised from citizens and not peregrini, it may be that citizen cohorts carried equipment more associated with legionary soldiers.

The grave stele of 'Annaius Daverzus' an auxiliary soldier of Cohors IIII Delmatarum (CIL 13, 07507) shows a shield that is large, rectangular and with a horizontal handgrip. The bottom edge of the shield is uncertain, as the carving has suffered damage at some point and has been restored in recent times. However, it is reasonable to assume the continual symmetry of a rectangle. It is a very unusual shape in respect of most modern accepted conceptions of an auxiliary shield.
He's in the imagebase here.. http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

Details of both can be seen here..
http://www.romanarmy.net/artshields.htm

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Arrichion - 12-27-2009

In Michael Simkins's book "Warriors of Rome: An illustrated Military History", he states that the oval clipeus was the predominant shield used by the auxilia. Furthermore, he states that the clipeus was used not only by the cavalry but by the infantry as well (pp. 70, plate 7). While it is not out of the realm of possibility that the rectangular scutum was used by the auxilia, it was more common for them to use the clipeus. An example of this can be seen on the stela of Firmus in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Bonn.

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Paullus Scipio - 12-27-2009

Peroni wrote:
Quote:Yes, albeit contentious, there is an auxiliary soldier depicted on Trajan's Column carrying a curved rectangular shield.

...there are actually at least three 'auxiliary types' depicted with rectangular 'scuta' on the column....in addition to the unidentifiable shield emblem illustrated, there are two curved sided scuta ( the older type with shorn off top and bottom), each with a thunderbolt device, but one flanked by a star each side, and the other similarly by Pelta ( see thread where I posted shield designs from the Column).

These just may ( at a guess) be 'cohortes ingenuorum', or 'voluntarium civium Romanorum' etc - those units of citizens raised by Augustus and equated with 'legionary status' in his will, whose 'special status' is indicated by the fact that they were commanded by Tribunes rather than Prefects........

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Theodosius the Great - 11-04-2011

Avete, I'd like to raise a couple of observations to this old thread based on my own readings. :grin: Although, as Peroni said, "scutum" is a generic term I'll use it for simplicity's sake.

First, I think the poster's original question is too broad. Depending on the region and time frame I think the answer can be "yes".

From my understanding, the semi-cylindrical shield used by the Romans was Celtic in origin. Although they used an Italo-Celtic variant the basic type was commonly used throughout the Meditarranean from say, the 3rd century BC to at least the 3rd century AD.

In the mid 2nd century BC the major Hellenistic kingdoms of the east began rearming and retraining their armies along Roman lines. But even before that there was already a considerable degree of "Celticization" in their military equipment. Different Celtic shields like the scutum and the thureos were introduced and used concurrently with classic Greek types for decades.

By the mid-1st century BC the Romanization of the Hellenistic kingdoms was complete. The phalanx was abandoned in favor of the Roman cohort. Therefore, when these kingdoms were absorbed into the empire many of their troops would already have been equipped with the scutum favored by the legionaries. So, the royal troops became the new auxiliaries already equipped, more or less, as legionaries since that became their 'native' style. I can think of no reason why some of these troops would not have continued to use the scutum into the 1st century AD as auxiliary shields.

In the west the scutum was known in Hispania, Carthage, Gaul, and, possibly, Britain.
Again, when these nations were conquered they would have supplied auxiliary troops already similarly equipped to legionaries.

Quote:In Michael Simkins's book "Warriors of Rome: An illustrated Military History", he states that the oval clipeus was the predominant shield used by the auxilia. Furthermore, he states that the clipeus was used not only by the cavalry but by the infantry as well
That might be a good generalization.

Quote:While it is not out of the realm of possibility that the rectangular scutum was used by the auxilia, it was more common for them to use the clipeus.
Ok, that's sounds way too sweaping a conclusion. What era, region are you refering to?

Even newer books are not immune to overgeneralizing. Many simply state that all auxiliaries used flat shields. Even M.C. Bishop and Coulston, well-regarded authors, make this assertion which seems to be based on a cursory examination of sculptural evidence. The scutum recovered from modern Fayum in Egypt was most likely used by a Ptolemaic soldier. So, an Egyptian auxiliary could've been equiped with it both during the Ptolemaic period and after.

When trying to answer questions like these I think we moderns need to be careful about making conclusions based on the Euro-centric archaeological record of the Roman period and on simplistic depictions on official monuments.

~Theo

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Gaius Decius Aquilius - 11-04-2011

On pg. 193 in James Warry's "Warfare in the Classical World" there is an illustration of an Auxiliary infantryman with a sctum. He attributes this to a "Cohors Hispanorum Scutata" circa 100 AD.

Ralph

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - mcbishop - 11-05-2011

Quote:Even newer books are not immune to overgeneralizing. Many simply state that all auxiliaries used flat shields. Even M.C. Bishop and Coulston, well-regarded authors, make this assertion which seems to be based on a cursory examination of sculptural evidence. The scutum recovered from modern Fayum in Egypt was most likely used by a Ptolemaic soldier. So, an Egyptian auxiliary could've been equiped with it both during the Ptolemaic period and after.
Can't let this accusation of being cursory pass without comment, particularly when the word scutum is being bandied around as if it means a particular types of shield (it doesn't, it just means 'shield'). If solid evidence, rather than wishful thinking, can be produced to show the curved body shield was used by other than citizen troops (i.e. legionaries and praetorians) then we'll willingly consider it. 'Most likely used by a Ptolemaic soldier' is not such evidence, it is an assertion that is not, so far as I am aware, supported by the evidence, although it was Kimmig's initial interpretation.

Quote:When trying to answer questions like these I think we moderns need to be careful about making conclusions based on the Euro-centric archaeological record of the Roman period and on simplistic depictions on official monuments.
Gosh, we're simplistic too, now!

As for cohortes scutatae which get wheeled out every so often, it just means infantry with shields for the reasons cited above (and – anticipating the usual rejoinder – attempts to match said cohortales with depictions on Trajan's Column showing mail-clad troops with rectangular curved shields are so full of logical flaws they aren't worth the electrons, particularly on a monument which has examples of segmentata carved with mail patterning: it is not a photograph, it is a subjective depiction).

Evidence is key in such discussions, both objective assessment of it and its careful deployment. Wishing it to be something it is not gets nobody anywhere. ;-)

Mike Bishop

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Theodosius the Great - 11-05-2011

I made an erroneous statement about the dished, oval scutum being used by non-Romans in western Europe. There's no evidence the dished, oval scutum the legionaries used was known outside of Italy. Hannibal's troops may have used them in Italy having plucked them from dead Romans. And maybe some Carthaginian troops adopted them after the 2nd Punic War. But this shield was probably used, among other types, throughout the Hellenistic east, IMO.

Quote:Can't let this accusation of being cursory pass without comment
The magnum opus both you and Professor Coulston authored, Dr. Bishop, is the most valued book I own on the subject of Roman military equipment. Having reread the passage in RME I still respectfully disagree with the conclusion about auxilia shields. But I apologetically withdraw my statement about any possible cursoriness on either of your parts. I think your conclusion is rather sound given the broadness of the period the chapter covers. I doubt that you literally meant that all auxilaries began carrying the clipeus starting in the year 27 BC. Smile

Quote:'Most likely used by a Ptolemaic soldier' is not such evidence, it is an assertion that is not, so far as I am aware, supported by the evidence, although it was Kimmig's initial interpretation.
True, but the simple fact that the shield was discovered all the way down in Fayum wouldn't suggest it belonged to a Roman since all the Egyptian legions were stationed in Alexandria and Nicopolis just outside the capital. Therefore, it may suggest that it belonged to an auxiliary or a Ptolemaic soldier. Or it could simply mean that it was manufactured in Fayum. Either way I don't find the suggestion that it was a legionary shield to be very compelling based on its discovered location.

Quote:Gosh, we're simplistic too, now!
No. My remarks were directed to the professional Roman sculptors who tend to use a cookie-cutter approach to depict citizen and auxilia soldiers.

Quote:As for cohortes scutatae which get wheeled out every so often, it just means infantry with shields for the reasons cited above
Agreed. The term sounds too vague to infer any concrete meaning.

Quote:Evidence is key in such discussions, both objective assessment of it and its careful deployment. Wishing it to be something it is not gets nobody anywhere.
Given the scant physical evidence I prefer to give more credence to the literary record. We know that the Hellenistic kingdoms reformed their armies into Roman cohorts starting in the mid-2nd century BC (see the Daphne Parade). This would suggest that these cohorts were rearmed and retrained as legionaries. The Jericho gladius hispaniensis would seem to support this theory. As would the Fayum shield, IMO.

Then there was King Deiotarus who recruited 30 cohorts entirely from Galatians during Julius Caesar's time. Augustus coalesced the surviving cohorts into a full fledged legion - Legio XXII Deiotariana. Again, this would support the suggestion that these royal troops were already equipped with Roman style armor and weaponry.

If we combine this theory with the continuity factor I believe it's entirely plausible that eastern auxiliary troops used the dished, oval scutum well into the first century AD.

~Theo

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Gaius Decius Aquilius - 11-05-2011

I read my post again. All I did was make mention of the fact that Warry cited something.

Here it is agin in full. Please excuse my spelling. I have dyslexia. It has always been a problem.

" On pg. 193 in James Warry's "Warfare in the Classical World" there is an illustration of an Auxiliary infantryman with a sctum. He attributes this to a "Cohors Hispanorum Scutata" circa 100 AD."

I do not see any judgment made by me, or any wishful thinking. The man gave the citation. That is all. I Included it to the thread without further comment. I agree with most of you: Bishop is THE MAN when it comes to to Roman military material culture. His work is the best you can find in that nitch.

Sorry. Sometimes I forget us Americans are only supposed to keep our comments to the Off-Topic and re-enactment sections. Please explain why the terms clipeus and scutum are in use at the same time, with the Romans making use of both terms and the distinctions in the useage. EDIT: Just out of curiosity, is there any Auxiliary Cohort with the term "Clipeus" included? Is this just a paper error by a clerk, or is there perhaps a reason the term "Scutata" is included? I get the impression that many Auxiliary Cohorts had some form of specialization that recieved special mention in the naming nomenclature.



Sorry to digress, (Further edit) but this bears mention and is relevant to the above discussion. How we interprete archaeological material is subject to what school we are from. The same find can have multiple interpretations of the same material depending on if you are from the American, the British, or the French school of thought. Or many others. The American Schools of Archaeology, which tend to focus on pre-history and have developed an analytic and positivist body of thought, and many of the European schools are based on different theoretical perspectives, and concomitant lines of thought. Curiously enough many Europeans who see value in positivism have to go to America to be published or find a position. We are less class oriented here, and I have heard that class issue mentioned by those same individuals who came here for professional reasons. I have heard many times your accent determines your professional tract. Perhaps at some point these differences in perspective and theory can be a subject of a thread. I see American papers on European archaeology slammed and dismissed by people and groups who do not know the difference in the perspectives of the different schools, and even their own theoretical prespectives not so well. I include RAT in this. When other perspectives are dismissed because that is not the "way we do it" the term is called an ethnocentric perspective. I learned that in Anthro 101, as I recall. I even recall a negative review in the American Journal of Archaeology by a British professor of a paper by an American author who stated he did not even read the paper before reviewing it. I can quote some other unprfessional examples of regional bias, but not now. This is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room that no one will talk about. How you interpret data is a result of the body of theory you were taught. Almost everything on Rome we get in America is the result of the British school. There are others. Too bad translations are not as available as they should be. I will get a suspension for this but who cares.

Ralph

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Caballo - 11-05-2011

No, no suspension- though as ever, please keep the tone constructive and not ad hominem (see forum rules).

But you are right, discussion of the various Archaeological philosophies is a digression from this thread. If you want to discuss these, please start a new thread.

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 11-05-2011

Yeah, that must be catching... Wink I comment on things without reading them all the time!!! :lol:
However, it would seem there are valid points in commenting on simplification, and on misinterpreting other peoples comments and opinions, basd on your own perspective and viewpoint.
Seems there is value in an open mind, and to close your mind to thinking out side the box can be very styming of progress.
Debate can often appear to be arrogant criticism on the tread where the typed word is king.

The Fayum scutum could well have been stolen from a Roman, and ended up where it was because the
trophy bearer left it there.
Could well have been one of caesars men who lost it.
Unless there is another Fayum scutum to the republican barly corn boss republican scutum??

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Theodosius the Great - 11-07-2011

Here's another bit of evidence that's usually been unconsidered or at least unmentioned. According to Samuel Rocca, the War Scroll (from mid-1st century AD Judea) describes the oval, curved scutum. Even if the date is disputed Judea never had legions stationed there before the outbreak of the First Jewish War. It did, however, have several auxiliary cohorts and the royal Herodian troops from the earlier epoch.

Quote:Seems there is value in an open mind, and to close your mind to thinking out side the box can be very styming of progress.

Agreed. No one's mind should be closed especially when the evidence is too scant to form an ironclad theory or interpretation. I'm simply presenting a counter-interpretation which, to my mind, is no less plausible than the prevailing one. In fact, I think Kimmig's interpretation is the most plausible.

Quote:The Fayum scutum could well have been stolen from a Roman, and ended up where it was because the
trophy bearer left it there.
Could well have been one of caesars men who lost it.

:lol: Or it could have been left by Caesar's bodyguard when he was sailing up the Nile with Cleopatra and he was too drunk to remember where he left it before turning back for Alexandria. Yes, the possibilities are endless. It could very well be Roman. But there are several problems with this interpretation, too many for me to think it's the best one.

First, as already stated, while the shield's location does not preclude it from belonging to a Roman legionary it also does not support or favor that possibility. That's fact, not opinion. Then, there's the fact that the shield doesn't precisely match Polybius's description. The measurements are slightly off and the construction involves three layers of wood instead of two. Finally, it's missing two components from Polybius's shield: an umbo, and an iron edging.

The absence of these components is not only a minus for a Roman interpretation but also a plus for a Ptolemaic/auxiliary possility since using an umbo and iron edging was an uncommon practice among (non-Celtic) Hellenistic troops.

Some other evidence/thoughts:

Fayum is near an oasis which sounds like a plausible location to station a detachment of auxiliary troops. The legions were all stationed up north by the Meditarranean. The rest of the province must have been garrisoned by the auxiliaries.

Caesar encouraged his men to adorn their shields with metalic applique which the Fayum shield certainly lacks. This may be neither here nor there but it doesn't support a Caesarian interpretation.

All a Roman interpretation has going for it is that the shield roughly resembles the ones from the Ahenobarbus sculpture and that Egypt was a Roman province. Or am I forgeting something?

For me there's too much consistency in the theory that all auxiliaries in all provinces at all times carried flat shields.

~Theo

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Gaius Decius Aquilius - 11-07-2011

"For me there's too much consistency in the theory that all auxiliaries in all provinces at all times carried flat shields." Specialist units of Cohorts are attesteded to on a number of ocassions.

Theo. Agreed. All sorts of things keep showing up that the guradians of the staus quo find inconvienient. Happens is Archaeology all the time. To quote my professor: "Another good theory shot down by an unwanted fact".

Ralph

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Nathan Ross - 11-07-2011

Quote:Fayum is near an oasis which sounds like a plausible location to station a detachment of auxiliary troops. The legions were all stationed up north by the Meditarranean. The rest of the province must have been garrisoned by the auxiliaries.

Since Augustus, I believe, there was at least one legion stationed at Babylon fortress, in the vicinity of modern Cairo. Fayyum is about 60 miles from Cairo, on the other side of the Nile. In the 20s and 30s BC there were legionary troops as far south as Syene, and so quite possibly in other locations around Egypt too.

But I agree that this does not necessarily make the Fayyum shield Roman. The pattern appears to have been quite widely used by a variety of troops during this period. Is there a possibility, though, that the metal fittings you mentioned might have been removed - for scrap, perhaps - before the wooden part of the shield was discarded?

Re: Did Auxilaries use the scutum? - Theodosius the Great - 11-07-2011

Quote:To quote my professor: "Another good theory shot down by an unwanted fact".
I believe it. In this case I don't think there are enough facts to shoot down this good theory. But here's another fact I left out: Polybius mentions that the Roman shield was faced with animal hide. Traces from the Fayum shield indicate it was faced with wool felt. Not a big deal, maybe, but it is another deviation from the description.

Quote:Since Augustus, I believe, there was at least one legion stationed at Babylon fortress, in the vicinity of modern Cairo. Fayyum is about 60 miles from Cairo, on the other side of the Nile. In the 20s and 30s BC there were legionary troops as far south as Syene, and so quite possibly in other locations around Egypt too. But I agree that this does not necessarily make the Fayyum shield Roman. The pattern appears to have been quite widely used by a variety of troops during this period. Is there a possibility, though, that the metal fittings you mentioned might have been removed - for scrap, perhaps - before the wooden part of the shield was discarded?

Yes, I readily acknowledge that the legions were used on occassion as a show of force further south where they doubtlessly either built temporary camps or, more likely, billeted themselves in the towns. At one point Egypt had a garrison of three legions.

If the Fayum shield did have metal fittings I've read no evidence about it. The shield had holes along the edge indicating that the wool felt facing was stitched onto it. There are some large, color photos of the shield in D'Amato and Graham's book "The Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier". I can see three large punctures on the right side. They appear to be due to damage (battle?) though given their size and random spacing. There may be some holes that were made by small nails though. So, it's possible, IMO.

~Theo