+- 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: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column (/showthread.php?tid=9179)
Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Nerva - 04-25-2007
I'm hoping to start an interesting thread here regarding the real nature of the Roman army at the time of Trajan. We have two basic pictorial sources to draw from. The classic Trajan's Column erected in Rome on the commission of Trajan, built and erected by skilled craftsmen and the Tropaeum Traiani at Adamklissi, commissioned by Trajan (?) and supposedly built by the army.
On first comparison a couple of basic things strike me:
1. Lorica Segmentata: Lots on Trajan's Column but none at Adamklissi?
2. Some metopes show a mixture of Squamata and Hamata at Adamklissi
3. Some with Squamata only at Adamklissi. I could be very wrong, but I cant find any images of Squamata on Trajans Column
3. The use of the weighted Pilum on both Trajan's Column and at Adamklissi. I think it's fair to conclude that this weighted weapon was used in the field and not just for defense of fortifications and some suggest.
I'm sure there are also many other observations that some of you have made. Why not share them here?
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Peroni - 04-25-2007
Depictions of cross-braced helmets appear on both monuments
as do images of soldiers wearing their swords on the left side. (Mainly auxiliaries).
TC No ocrae or manicae
TT both are seen
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Tarbicus - 04-26-2007
Quote:1. Lorica Segmentata: Lots on Trajan's Column but none at Adamklissi?If the TT metope figures were modelled on actual soldiers and the soldiers present were auxiliaries, then perhaps that's a reason?.
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Peroni - 04-26-2007
That's very interesting Jim,
so what you're suggesting is that the images we see on the Metopes actually depict auxiliaries and not Legionaries? (Scale/mail only).
What about the curved scutum and pilum? I know that the finds from Roomberg (shield cover and pilum shaft) suggest that Cohors Voluntariorum may have been equipped the same as the legions, but there appearance on the metopes does seem to be very different from the typical auxiliary soldiers in Metope XIV with mail shirts and oval clipeus.
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Tarbicus - 04-26-2007
Quote:What about the curved scutum and pilum?You know mate, every month that goes by throws up a little surprise, like slaves being trained alongside their legionary masters in combat with weapons, including the wearing of helmets (galearii). Shields? There are hints to suggest legionaries also used the clipeus, so why not auxilia with curved scuta and pila? I can't say "it's for sure", but being rigid with the equipment of the men in the Roman army is just looking very haphazard to my mind, but I could be wrong. Look at the amount of legionaries trained in archery so they could step up with bows when necessary (every 2nd or 4th man?), yet we persist in depicting archers as Hamians, etc. So, why not have auxilia trained in the use of the pilum?
I recently read that it looks like different units amongst the Imperial legion had different specialist abilities, mirroring the older Republican legion. I think it was Speidel, but I'll check.
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Peroni - 04-26-2007
Well, there IS a depiction of an auxiliary on TC carrying a curved scutum, and the shield cover from Roomberg is wide enough for a curve-faced shield.
There were also cohors 'scutata'. Whether they used a curved shield is arguable as all shields are in effect 'scuta'. Interestingly IIRC both scutata cohors were from Spain, and were equitata.
Cohors II Hispanorum Cyrenaica scutata equitata
Cohors I Lusitanorum Cyrenaica scutata equitata
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Caballo - 04-26-2007
"why not auxilia with curved scuta and pila?"
Looking at the various stele, the key (only) determinant between legionary and auxillary kit seems to be that legionaries have a curved shield (which might be oval- eg Cordus of Leg XIIII GMV) and may have a pilum- and auxillaries have a flat shield (which may be rectangular oval heaxagonal etc - see Peronis' article) and hasta/ hastae. AFAIK, everything else is possible.
True, the manica is only shown on TT as worn by legionaries, but this is (IMHO) too small an amount of evidence to say definitively that it was not worn by auxillaries, especially as early use of the manica was seen among non-Romans (Greeks, Gaulish crupelarii etc) and could have come in to the army via auxillaries (though this is pure speculation!).
So- Gallic and Italic helmets are fine for auxillaries. Lorica debatable, but given the finds at "auxillary" forts, a case can be made. (Though I prefer the thought of legionaries visiting the auxillary forts in their disintegrating loricae to the general amusement of the auxillaries in their hamata...
)There is no evidence AFAIK that auxilaries wore worse kit than legionaries- Annaius is a good example here.
So- if this is correct- the kit picked up by auxilaries during the Civil Wars would have been shield (perhaps with a specific legionary emblem?) and pila- which intuitively makes sense as two priority pieces of kit.
Just my two denarii worth!
Cheers
Caballo
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Peroni - 04-26-2007
Quote:Looking at the various stele, the key (only) determinant between legionary and auxillary kit seems to be that legionaries have a curved shield (which might be oval- eg Cordus of Leg XIIII GMV) and may have a pilum- and auxillaries have a flat shield
Which is Mike Bishop's theory too. Generally speaking yes, tombstones and stele always seem to show these features. But, this does not ring true when we look at the Roomberg finds (Published by C. van Driel-Murray).
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Caballo - 04-26-2007
"Roomberg finds (Published by C. van Driel-Murray)"
I don't know these- could you give some more info?
Cheers
Caballo
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Quadratus - 04-26-2007
The thing that strikes me most forcibly whenever comparing the TC images with those at Adamklissi is that they cannot both be right! Sure there are similarities as both show guys in armour doing horrible things with short swords to other guys with falcae (and vice versa!). But any more detailed level, the two are different.
Personally, I find the argument that the only legionaries known to the sculptors in Rome were Praetorians - so every legionary is a Praetorian on TC - while the only soldiers known to the Adamklissi artists were auxiliaries - so every Roman soldier on the metopes is an auxiliary, a bit unconvincing. I am also unconvinced that one is an 'artistic' view and the other some crude local botch-up, although the competence of the carving suggests some element of this. And, yes, I understand the political nature of all public images and the fact that they inevitably lie within a tradition, but I still find it hard to understand what is going on.
Ultimately, surely, the archaeology must be the arbiter (waits nervously for the riposte). Is there any evidence 'from the dirt' that suggest one is more or less accurate than the other? My understanding is that, at the moment, the metopes are becoming more and more credible – or is that just wishful thinking on my part?
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Tarbicus - 04-26-2007
Quote:Ultimately, surely, the archaeology must be the arbiter (waits nervously for the riposte). Is there any evidence 'from the dirt' that suggest one is more or less accurate than the other? My understanding is that, at the moment, the metopes are becoming more and more credible – or is that just wishful thinking on my part?Look closely at the TT and a lot of it's also been dug up from the ground and resides in museums. The helmets are unmistakably of Italic-G style, and even Aquincon. Nothing like it on TC except gear that looks unlike anything found, even in design of the segs. No manica on TC within the main spirals, but they're there on the TT, as well as greaves and pteryges. Also, the men on TC look completely uniform, which seems highly unlikely and is more likely to allow a general civilian audience the ability to differentiate between the different types of soldier. IMHO.
Jon Coulston is writing a monster book about TC, and Mike Bishop has already pointed out that individual sculptors can be identified on different segments of the column. It's here on RAT somewhere.
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Nerva - 04-26-2007
Jim, I can't see how you can say the helmets on TT are Gallic G. They are so poorly defined that they could be anything from Italic to Gallic with expanded cross bracing. I would be very reluctant to draw any conclusions regarding the detail of the equipment shown on TT as it is so generally cast.
With regard to auxiliaries using curved scuta and pila, well why not? I think it's highly unlikely that there was discrimination down to the level of what weapons were uniformly used by legionaries and auxiliaries.
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Caballo - 04-26-2007
"With regard to auxiliaries using curved scuta and pila, well why not? I think it's highly unlikely that there was discrimination down to the level of what weapons were uniformly used by legionaries and auxiliaries."
Apart from the evidence of the steles? :wink: Possible danger of imposing our ideas on a very different time?
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Nerva - 04-26-2007
I think the steles represent a very formal depiction of the soldier and most often show little by way of Armour or weapons. I think it would be very misleading to draw general conclusions on the general state of equipment in use in the Roman army at any particular time based on this evidence.
I think a comparison between TT and TC is evidence of the varying styles of depiction of the army, would you draw any real conclusions regarding the detail of the arms and equipment of the early second century army from these alone? I think not.
I think we have to accept that the nature of the army and it's associated auxiliaries at any given time was far less uniform that we would like to believe.
Re: Tropaeum Traiani versus Trajans Column - Caballo - 04-26-2007
"I think we have to accept that the nature of the army and it's associated auxiliaries at any given time was far less uniform that we would like to believe"
Well, we are in complete agreement there! The danger of taking a modern view of a "uniform" army is surely wrong. In the Leg XIIII/ Coh I BAT in the RMRS (UK), you see lorica , hamata and now a alternating scale squamata- with helmets varying from Italic D to Coolus, and in the auxilaries, hamata and one squamata.
Cheers
Caballo