Identity of these signa - Printable Version

Identity of these signa - 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: Identity of these signa (/showthread.php?tid=2695)

Pages: 1 2

Identity of these signa - Praefectusclassis - 06-09-2001

Salvete, 
Webster, The Roman Imperial Army (3rd.ed; Oklahoma 1998 ) , p.133 and 138, pl. X, is a bit confusing about the origins of these signa. On p.133 he suggests they're from a Rome cohort, while on p.138 he says it probably belonged to a legion originally consituted from marines, because of the ship's prow. He leaves it at that. 
Since the prow is, as far as I know, not a symbol of either of the Legiones Adiutrices, could this be a depiction of signa of Legio X Fretensis, which did have a trireme on its aquila standard? Would it fit with any know unit rewards (i.e. coronae)? 
Does anybody know a bit more about this Relief from S.Marcello, Rome? 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper 
 
<img src="http://www.jloorthuys.myweb.nl/Webmapje/signa.jpg"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 6/10/01 11:29:25 am

Re: Identity of these signa - Anonymous - 06-10-2001

Where and in what context was this fragment found? I have an older version of Webster's "Imperial Roman Army", and it's not mentioned. 
 
In Yann Le Bohec's "Imperial Roman Army", I'm seeing a reference to a "corona navalis". Maybe the ship's prow represents the Tenth, maybe not, as I'm also seeing on your pic what appears to be a "corona muralis". Perhaps this unit had participated in some naval engagement even though it's origins may not necessarily trace back to a naval unit. "The Greeks invented logic but were not fooled by it."
- Eric Hoffer

Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/uthecaesarionsection.showPublicProfile?language=EN>The Caesarion Section</A> at: 6/10/01 10:32:17 am

Re: Identity of these signa - Praefectusclassis - 06-10-2001

Hi Section, 
I found a picture of this relief in another book, M.Clauss, Lexikon Lateinischer MilitÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¤rischen FachausdrÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼cke (Stuttgart 1999), there it is said that the relief is from the 2nd century ad, no more information unfortunately. 
I do not know of any other (imperial) legion using trireme as its symbol, and it doesn't look like a corona navalis to me, that seems to have been depicted by to prows/rams facing eachother in oak leaves, besides, wouldn't a corona be higher up on a standard? And the corona navalis was extremely rare anyway. 
Are you suggesting it cannot be Fretensis, because of the Corona Muralis/Vallaris? Is it known which dona Leg.X.Fr.received during its career? 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper

Re: Identity of these signa - Anonymous - 06-10-2001

Yeah, I can't find another legion known to use the galley as it's symbol, either. 
 
As far as the exact form the different awards took is harder to nail down. Taking into account the wide varieties of arms and equipment in use by different units concurrently as well as artistic license taken by craftsmen and sculptors, the prow depicted above could be corona navalis, or it could signify the origins of this legion. 
 
This leads me to a question in an area of which I don't know too much about...do we have a definite idea of how different ornaments were placed on these standards? Such as order of significance? 
 
I, for one, would be thrilled if this fragment turned out to be a portrayal of Tenth legion standards. I would like to look into this in more depth and find out more about this piece and the context in which it was found. The dating to the 2nd century CE helps. "The Greeks invented logic but were not fooled by it."
- Eric Hoffer

Re: Identity of these signa - Guest - 06-11-2001

Salve, 
 
Some tetrarchic standardbearers carrying elaborately decorated eagle standards, with the same type of bird, are interpreted as praetorians from Constantine's army in Speidel's RAS II. They are shown in a plate acccompanying either the article on the praetorians of Maxentius or the one about the link between earlier guard formations and later elite field army units. I will post the reference when I get home from work. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Re: Identity of these signa - Praefectusclassis - 08-02-2001

Hi there, 
I looked up Von Domaszewski's article on the signa in AufsÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¤tze zur rÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mischen Heeresgeschichte (Darmstadt 1972). 
The bird is indeed similar to the ones on the Praetorian signa. 
However, according to him (p.58.) praetorian signa carry the imago of the emperor. He points to Tacitus, Historiae 1.41 and Herodian 8.5.9 and the 'TrajanssÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¤ule' to prove this. And here it is missing! 
There are coronae classicae among the Praetorian signa (that is: Von D. recognizes them as such) but they seem to be very different in shape and are always higher up on the signa. That's only logical, for a Corona Navalis is a much higher decoration than the phalera that are depicted above the prow on this signum. 
Phalerae are very scarce visibile on the Praetorian signa. 
So, no Praetorian standard it seems, but what then? 
A possible solution is a bit farther in the article, p.75-76. On page 76 three coins of the Speculatores are depicted that have images that look remarkably alike to the above signa. However only the leftmost coin (without any eagles and a badly visible prow) shows the text C[o]hortis Speculatorum, the others only SC. Which, sadly, doesn't mean Speculatores Caesari, but Senatus Consultum. 
 
<img src="http://www.jloorthuys.myweb.nl/Webmapje/Muntspeculatores.jpg"> 
 
So, any speculator-specialists here? Any thoughts? And what have speculatores to do with ships? 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 8/2/01 4:32:04 pm

Re: Identity of these signa - Guest - 08-02-2001

Salve, 
 
The coins with standards of the cohortes speculatorum were issued by Marcus Antonius. The word cohors was used besides for the more well known regular formations of the legiones and the auxilia for formations of irregular type, including cavalry. Thus there is the cohors Germanorum, which formed the early imperial horse guard, a koors stabl`esianoon ( stablesiani or 'stable boys' were legionary horsemen) of third century date and mention of cavalry cohortes (not in the sense of part-mounted equitatae) in Ammianus. Their imperial counterparts were most certainly mounted since a number of inscriptions call such soldiers explicitly equites and given the reconnaissance duties of the speculatores of the late republic it seems very likely that they were cavalry troopers as well. The use of cohors for a unit of mounted troops like speculatores would not be unique and would have parallels in the Roman army. 
 
Regarding the strength of such cohortes nothing is known with certainty. While regular cohortes had an establishment of around 500 men (the milliaria units not being attested before the reign of Nero) it is not known whether this applied to the elite scouts as well. The highest number of speculatores attested for the imperial era is only ten per legion (according to epigraphic sources Spain, with a one legion garrison, had ten, and a three legion province had thirty such men), so the numerical strength may have been below the usual five hundred. 
 
Caesar used elite troops to man his ships as described in the Bellum civile, book 1, caput 57. The speculatores were similarly picked troops and as scouts are likely to have belonged to the best and bravest. Perhaps they too were used for spearheading boarding parties. To argue for employment of mounted troops for other duties than the typical cavalry tasks one can think of the elite cavalrymen used as dismounted shock troops in sieges in imperial times (description in Josephus and wall crown on signum of the equites singulares Augusti). 
 
BC 1.57: 57] Erat multo inferior numero navium Brutus; sed electos ex omnibus legionibus fortissimos viros, antesignanos, centuriones, Caesar ei classi attribuerat, qui sibi id muneris depoposcerant. ... 
 
Interestingly no signifer is yet attested for the imperial era. While the legionary troops of speculatores are quite small and probably lacked any formal hierarchy, the praetorian speculatores are thought to have had a considerably greater strength. For the latter are both NCO's ( tesserarius optio) and officers ( centurio, exercitator (a position most often held by a centurion)) attested in literary and epigraphic sources. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 8/2/01 4:56:22 pm

Re: Identity of these signa - Praefectusclassis - 08-02-2001

Good tip thanx Sander. 
Trouble with these coins is, as Von D. himself admits, that the middle coin was struck by Galba, an unlikely candidate to honour the Speculatores, as they initiated his downfall. The right coin is from Vespasian's reign. 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper

Re: Identity of these signa - Guest - 08-02-2001

Salve, 
 
What are the reasons for considering the standards on the two imperial coins as related to the speculatores? Is there a text on the other side indicating a link with these troops or is the relation inferred from the type of standard? 
 
There is an inscription which has a career including a position as speculator and an unclear post with the Pontic fleet. 
 
AE 1968, 497: [...] Celerem qui militavit decurio / [...e]t spec(ulator) et mo( ) praef(ecti) clas(sis) Po(nticae). 
 
Any idea what the mo(?) could be? 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Re: Identity of these signa - Praefectusclassis - 08-02-2001

It seems Von D. thinks these coins are related because of the similarities in design of the standards. He draws attention to the open, vertical coronae, the single phalera and the ships prow. 
I my opinion, this is quite correct for the two imperial coins, but the republican is, besides not being very well visible, missing an eagle, all standards end in spikes, no hands here, and the ships prow, if at all there, is possibly on the leftmost standard, not all of them, it seems. 
No text and the author says nothing about the other side of the coins. 
So, if no speculatores, back to Leg X Fret, or maybe the fleets? 
 
I have no idea what the mo( ) could be. Is it necessarily an adiective to praefecti? 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper

Re: Identity of these signa - Guest - 08-03-2001

Salve, 
 
I don't think it is an adiective to praefectus, but rather that it may be an acronym for a function, though I have no clue ( m(agister?) o(fficii?/rdinarius?)). Perhaps this book by Clauss has more info on the text: 
 
Clauss, M., Untersuchungen zu den principales des rÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mischen Heeres von Augustus bis Diocletian: cornicularii, speculatores, frumentarii (Bochum 1973). 
 
It has been a while since I read it though and I cannot recall whether there was anything in it regarding a link between speculatores and the navy. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Re: Identity of these signa - Praefectusclassis - 08-04-2001

I just went to the Uni library and read that part, and there's nothing in Clauss about the navy and the speculatores, very interesting though. 
 
I also checked Mattingly, Coins in the British Museum, and the above coins seem to be the only ones (up to Hadrian) of standards on prows. Thing is, Galba's (posthumous coins by the way!) and Vespasian's are described as standards on prows, while Antonius' speculatores coin is described as standards decorated with a prow! I am really unsure if these coins should be compared with eachother as Von D. does. 
 
Third, I found a booklet about the Church of San Marchello, where the depiction of the signa were found. It appears this relief was used for a medieval grave. According to this description the relief can be dated to the third, and not the second, century and would have been part of a victory monument on the Campus Martius. 
Indeed, should we compare the relief to the coins? For instance the prow on the relief is clearly part of the standard, while the standards on the Galba and Vespasian coins seem to stand on the prows. 
 
So, Section, do you know of any battle (perhaps between contenders to the throne) in the third century in which Legio X Fretensis played a decisive role? 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 8/4/01 9:25:49 am

Re: Identity of these signa - mcbishop - 08-04-2001

The dates suggested for this relief so far are only guesses based on stylistic grounds. I have always regarded it as being 1st century BC-early 2nd century AD, again on stylistic grounds, but also because later standards tend not be be so elaborate (not that there are many depictions of them). Caution is also necessary because most metropolitan sculpture is a very dodgy source for the sort of level of detail this thread is attempting to see in this relief. It contains all the familiar elements for standards (various coronae, phalerae etc) with which any artist would be conversant and there is no reason *per se* why the three standards should represent an actual unit, any more than the standards or shield blazons on Trajan's Column depict real units. With an unprovenanced piece of sculpture like this, it is always safer to err on the side of caution. 
 
Mike Bishop

Re: Identity of these signa - Praefectusclassis - 08-04-2001

Thanks for the warning, I sometimes tend to get carried away by my enthusiasm, though I wasn't planning on making any hard statements about this relief, we're only trying options here. But still, even if these signa contain standard elements (is that a pun?), the ship's prow, as an element of a standard, is not that usual. Is the artist incorporating somethin rare to make it more interesting, or did it have a specific meaning? I think that's the basic question we're trying to answer here. 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper

alternative signa for legio X fretensis - Jeroen Pelgrom - 09-10-2001

salve everybody, 
 
i read this discussion about that signa. I have been looking on the internet and found this on the site of the legio X fretensis reanactors in USA 
( www.quiknet.com/~fifi/index10.htm) 
 
In the history section of the legion i found this text : 
 
An additional emblem, the trireme, was also used. This has been interpreted to represent the involvement of Legio X in the war between Octavian against Sextus Pompeius, in 717 AUC (36 BC), in the Straits of Messina, off Navlochus, in Sicily. Each side had about 300 ships. But Octavian had Marcus Vispanius Agrippa, the inventor of the iron grapnel. This device consisted of a heavy beam with a large spike at the far end. The grapnel, attached to a heavy line, was thrown over on the deck of the enemy ship and the line drawn tight until the grapnel caught and held fast in the wooden planking. The use of this device afforded Octavian's troops a tactical advantage. When engaging the enemy ships, Octavian's naval forces would hook on tight to the opponent's deck. It now provided them with a bridge for his soldiers to cross over and thus defeat the enemy. 
 
As part of Octavian's army, over the years, Legio X acquired two more emblems to display: a dolphin and a boar. 
 
So perhaps this standard is of the tenth legion ? 
 
greetings from Jeroen Pelgrom