Vexilifer with or without animal skin?

[Marcus Mummius]

Alas, no vexillifers, but I'll go back through my archive of military coin types and see if I can find a vexillifer depicted anywhere.

That's great! Looking forward to what you learn.

Vale,

[FlaviusCrispus]

Now, looking more closely here, is the second guy from the rear holding a fancy vexillum? I seem to see some kind of swishy fabricy thing at the top.

There are different configurations of this coin type, some of which show the standard-bearers in different order. You can definitely see the guys holding standards are wearing some kind of draped head covering, one one I think I see ears, and on another I see some kind of furry texture. So I think we're definitely talking animal skins, here.

[Paullus Scipio]

Hi Flavius !

Now, looking more closely here, is the second guy from the rear holding a fancy vexillum? I seem to see some kind of swishy fabricy thing at the top.

Although the coin is somewhat worn, I would be almost certain that what is depicted here are Praetorian signifers, probably cohort ones, if the top of the standards depict spearpoints rather than the hand/manus for maniples.The "swishyThing" is indeed likely to be a small vexilla( very similar standards are shown on Trajan's column). I would suggest the 'blocky looking' things on the shaft are the usual Laurel garland wreaths ( but worn smooth by coin usage), especially as there are several, going up each shaft. In that case, the animal skins in question here would be Lionskins......
...and I see the word 'discipline' below the Praetorians. This was a common theme on Early Imperial coinage......perhaps our coin experts can tell us more?

[FlaviusCrispus]

BINGO!

I knew I remebered seeing these somewhere...



Note that the Aquilifer standing before Hadrian is clearly wearing an animal skin of some type, despite assertions earlier in this thread that aquilifers went bare-headed.

Now, for the vexillifer-- there is definitely a vexillum angled toward the emperor, but who is holding it? If it's the guy in the rear rank (whose arms seem to be arranged as if he's holding something), we have a very odd case— his helmet appears to be horned! Or is that some kind of covering (an animal skin, perhaps?) coming up from the back? There appears to be some kind of broad flap or additional covering to the helmet. Could it be (gasp!) an elephant skin headdress?

This is really an amazingly detailed coin, easily the best of its type in existance. There is another variant of this type which shows the emperor on horseback, but the British Museum example is in rather poor condition. However, it does seem to show a vexillifer wearing some kind of draped head covering:



I'm going to keep looking. This gets more interesting all the time!

[FlaviusCrispus]

...and I see the word 'discipline' below the Praetorians. This was a common theme on Early Imperial coinage......perhaps our coin experts can tell us more?

*AHEM*

DISCIPLINA AVG ("the emperor instills his discipline") is the legend of this particular sestertius type of Hadrian. Antoninus Pius repeats the type on two occasions, but no other emperor used this legend or precise type.

You're correct that the soldiers are probably Praetorians. I'm also inclined to think that the "swishy thing" is some kind of combined signa-vexillum thingimibob-- the Praetorians seemed to have all kinds of weird, fancy standards than no other unit used.

[Paullus Scipio]

You notice I didn't include Praetorian vexillifers in my original list....because they may be 'an exception that proves the rule', and because there are very few depictions of such, at least until the second century.........
In the first coin above, the 'aqulifer' seems to have a lion's mane going down his back, while the 'mask' is smooth, so probably a Praetorian again.
Question : Did Praetorians gain Eagle standards and if so when? Hadrian's reign?
...and what do the inscriptions say ?? :? ?
A similar Praetorian (?) aquilifer, also wearing a muscled cuirass with short ptryges ( like the coin) is shown on the Arch of Constantine, re-used from an earlier monument of Marcus Aurelius (or perhaps Hadrian ?) It differs in that the eagle's wreath is held in the beak instead of around the wings.

[FlaviusCrispus]

n the first coin above, the 'aqulifer' seems to have a lion's mane going down his back, while the 'mask' is smooth, so probably a Praetorian again.

The legened of this coin is EXERC[ITVM] BRITANNI[CVS] — "The Army of Britain." So they are not supposed to be Praetorians, at any rate. Also, you'll note the signa has the manus, or hand, at the top— not Praetorian.

Interesting, hmmm?

[Paullus Scipio]

Thanks for the clarification, Flavius...the coin inscriptions are a little blurry, so a 'translation is very welcome and helpful ?

Interesting, hmmm?

Certainly is !! (

[SOCL]

Is it necessary that because some wear animal skins all do? Isn't it perhaps possible that this was something akin to personal choice or the orders of the individual commander? I realize that there's not necessarily any precedent for that particular statement, but the fact we have seen various versions of -ignifer animal-less and animal-ed, so doesn't this seem to imply a lack of consistency as far as a "uniform" goes?

[Paullus Scipio]

At the risk of drifting off-topic, it is tempting to connect those two coins of Hadrian celebrating the Army of Britain with his visit and the subsequent construction of Hadrians wall ( a must see/visit/march the length !! ).
Can you shed any more light, Flavius ?

[FlaviusCrispus]

Can you shed any more light, Flavius ?

Hadrian is famous for his travels, which are amply recorded on his coinage in an almost "postcard" fashion ("Here I am entering sunny Syria! Whipping the army into shape! Handing out cash! Having a wonderful time!"). He visited Britain in AD 122, probably bringing Legio VI Victrix with him; he seems to have decided on building Hadrian's Wall during his visit and may have helped survey the course himself. There was a "Britannia" coin issued right around the time of his visit. But the coins pictured on the previous reign were actually struck late in his reign, AD 133-137, long after his visit to Britain and probably after construction of the wall was complete. Many of the Travel Series coins were re-issued at this time, when his traveling days were done, almost as if Hadrian, at the end of his years, was reminiscing about his journeys to far-flung lands.

Isn't it perhaps possible that this was something akin to personal choice or the orders of the individual commander?

You may be on to something there! Maybe there is less of a rigid orthodoxy as to what "skins" are worn by whom than we suppose.

[SOCL]

Isn't it perhaps possible that this was something akin to personal choice or the orders of the individual commander?

You may be on to something there! Maybe there is less of a rigid orthodoxy as to what "skins" are worn by whom than we suppose.

It seems to me that much of this debate revolves around an inherent notion we in modern societies have about the concept of uniforms within military organizations, and in this case, it is reflected by the debate of whether or not -ignifers of all types wore animal skins, and more deeply, of which types. It seems to me that the evidence we have does not suggest that a pattern exists; that indeed the pattern itself is the lack of uniform, which may exist for many reasons unknown to us (in the same way we--and perhaps even the Romans!--do not known what the disks on vexilia actually mean, or if whether the hand at the top actually represents the maniple).

Just my thoughts.

[Marcus Mummius]

Could it perhaps be that a vexilifer didn't have a clear characterized identity like a signifer had?

A vexillum was carried when a part of a legio was seperated from the larger entity of the legion. So the role of vexilifer is somewhat more temporary than that of a signifer. When the contignent that was represented by a vexillum rejoined their mother unit (the legio) the vexilifer would loose his job. Do we know what kind of person would have been chosen to carry the vexillum?

[SOCL]

Could it perhaps be that a vexilifer didn't have a clear characterized identity like a signifer had?

A vexillum was carried when a part of a legio was seperated from the larger entity of the legion. So the role of vexilifer is somewhat more temporary than that of a signifer. When the contignent that was represented by a vexillum rejoined their mother unit (the legio) the vexilifer would loose his job. Do we know what kind of person would have been chosen to carry the vexillum?

So it's something like an acting post rather than anything truly formal?

[Marcus Mummius]

Could it perhaps be that a vexilifer didn't have a clear characterized identity like a signifer had?

A vexillum was carried when a part of a legio was seperated from the larger entity of the legion. So the role of vexilifer is somewhat more temporary than that of a signifer. When the contignent that was represented by a vexillum rejoined their mother unit (the legio) the vexilifer would loose his job. Do we know what kind of person would have been chosen to carry the vexillum?

So it's something like an acting post rather than anything truly formal?

I always thought about it as an acting post, yes. But I don't know if that's true :?