Imaginiferi (1st/2nd c AD)

[Lupianus]

Currently re-reading Tacitus' Histories, I stumbled across the description of an imago of Galba carried by a vexillarius (I,41). Although this should be an imaginifer and I take it as Tacitus being misinformed, I'm now curious again.

Okay, the imaginifer carried the imago Imperatoris. There was at least one imaginifer per (independently operating) unit, i.e. one per legion, also one for every auxiliary cohort/ala, and even one per vexillatio (AE 1991, 1400). To which part of these units they were attached, isn't quite clear to me. Probably, there's word of an imaginifer assigned to a legion's centuria led by the princeps posterior(?) (CIL 03, 195).
I cannot see a tactical role (being already fulfilled by the signiferi/vexillarii/aquiliferi). And though several inscriptions do mention imaginiferi as a title, I'm not sure, if they held permanent rank.

It's the same problem I've got with the legionary vexillarii: They seem to hold a rank, but are they just 'switched over' signiferi or are they nominated 'ad hoc' to carry the vexillation's banner (i.e. the banner of converged legionary units).

Maybe some of you can tell me more, and maybe there's more evidence. Any hint is appreciated.

A quick search on the forum showed no answer, but if it's already there, please point it out to me.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Til

I don't know if any of this can help but here goes:

1. References from older threads:

D. B. Campbell, PostPosted: Sun 30 Apr 2006, 11:28 :

"The imago was specifically the image of the emperor (which is why Tiberius was so outraged to find that the legions had adopted the image of his Praetorian Prefect, Sejanus, on their standards: Suet., Tib. 48 ).

(Just to confuse matters, Tacitus calls the standard-bearer carrying Galba's image a vexillarius: Tac., Hist. 1.41. Normally, this was the imaginifer's job!) "

link from old RAT

Dress of an imaginifer (in passing). Thread, Tue 28 Aug 2007: link from old RAT

2. Extract of a handout I made for my students (sorry - no references, wastes paper):

"(PRINCIPALES – DUPLICARII) (F) IMAGINIFER

The imaginifer was a type of signifer during the Roman Empire, who carried the imago - a metal three dimensional portrait of an emperor.
The imaginifer was added to the ranks of the cohorts when the Imperial Cult was first established during the reign of Augustus.
The imago was thought to have been carried only in the leading cohort, but this may not have been the case as a record exists of the Third Cohort of a legion also having one.
An imaginifer may not have had a tactical function, perhaps presenting the imperial bust or busts only in ceremonials."

3. "Roman Granaries and Store Buildings", By Geoffrey Rickman. Grain issues/ stipendia: [url:22eb3s2e]http://www.google.com.au/books?id=aaI8AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA274&dq=roman+IMAGINIFER[/url]

4. "Roman Sculpture from the North West Midlands" By Martin Henig, Graham Webster, T. F. C. Blagg - Grave stele details of an imaginifer: [url:22eb3s2e]http://www.google.com.au/books?id=roNPZGyfktMC&pg=PA19&dq=roman+IMAGINIFER[/url]

5. "The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D." By Graham Webster - On the status of an imaginifer: [url:22eb3s2e]http://www.google.com.au/books?id=4aknrmf8kvoC&pg=PA117&dq=roman+IMAGINIFER&lr=#PPA117[/url], Pages 117/118 (Note 1, P 118)

6. --------------- p 136 and Note 3: [url:22eb3s2e]http://www.google.com.au/books?id=4aknrmf8kvoC&pg=PA136&dq=IMAGINIFER&lr=#PPA136[/url]

7. "Likeness and Presence" By Hans Belting, Edmund Jephcott, p. 107 (Interesting comment about presence of an imaginifer in battle with Constantine): [url:22eb3s2e]http://www.google.com.au/books?id=kuWm7jVWFiEC&pg=PA107&dq=IMAGINIFER&lr=[/url]

8. "Conquerors and Slaves", By Keith Hopkins. The text of this page suggests the imaginifer had less a tactical than perhaps a religious role: [url:22eb3s2e]http://www.google.com.au/books?lr=&id=qEr4WFgOz5UC&dq=IMAGINIFER&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&sig=ACfU3U3bZjHCVqjXt1Onmt9Ch1UI949i6g&q=imaginifer[/url]

9. LEGION VIII AUGUSTA LE FORUM; Stèle d'un imaginifer de la VIII à Sirmium; [url:22eb3s2e]http://www.leg8.org/viewtopic.php?t=2309[/url]

10. “A Companion to the Roman Armyâ€

[Praefectusclassis]

I think the text to consult is still Von Domaszewski, 'Die Fahnen im römischen Heere'. Old as heck and republished later, but not much has been done on it since. Or have I missed something?

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

We also may need to consider that Tacitus may not have used the precise military terminology, especially considering that there is no definitive proof that he himself had military experience.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Jasper

I'm really having fun with the computer tonight. I've just sent off a reply to you and it's vanished. (Try again). Your reference led me to the following site:
Bibliographie "Römische Fahnen und Standarten": url]http://www.smev.de/flags/bib-rom1.html[/url]which may also be helpful. I might do a bit of digging myself now.

A quick google shows:Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres (1908) is online at:[url:2x050kea]http://www.archive.org/details/dierangordnungde00domauoft[/url]if not "Die Fahnen...".

Cheers

Howard/SPC

[Praefectusclassis]

We also may need to consider that Tacitus may not have used the precise military terminology, especially considering that there is no definitive proof that he himself had military experience.

That's an often heard accusation, but not necessarily correct. I believe there's an article about exactly this subject in the conference proceedings La Hierarchie (Rangordnung) de l'armee Romaine, and see also Saddington, D. B., "Tacitus and the Roman Army," Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II. 33.5 (Berlin/NY 1991) 3484-3555.[/i]

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

That's an often heard accusation, but not necessarily correct. I believe there's an article about exactly this subject in the conference proceedings La Hierarchie (Rangordnung) de l'armee Romaine, and see also Saddington, D. B., "Tacitus and the Roman Army," Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II. 33.5 (Berlin/NY 1991) 3484-3555.[/i]

Thanks Jasper, I will check those out.

[Lupianus]

Thanks everyone for the input! Will check the links later, especially the Domaszewski ones.

Jasper, in fact, Domaszewski is one of those historians of old time that had ages to study their subjects. I think no one can best them anymore. So it's actually a shame I've omitted him. Thanks for the advice.

Alexander, I second Jasper's view of Tacitus being somewhat familiar with military facts. At least his father-in-law was an acknowledged commander and he himself must [edit: might] have served some time before becoming a senator. He might have confused something, anyway. But he definitely had insights.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Alexander, I second Jasper's view of Tacitus being somewhat familiar with military facts. At least his father-in-law was an acknowledged commander and he himself must have served some time before becoming a senator. He might have confused something, anyway. But he definitely had insights.

Having relatives in the army does not necessarily add to one's personal expertise. As to his military service in his public career - according to what I read, he likely served, but "must have served" might be too strong an expression.

[Lupianus]

Writing in a hurry and being no native speaker sometimes leads to wrong expressions. :oops: Hence I follow your alteration. Regarding his father-in-law I imagine Tacitus at least having contact with fellows from the army to write his biography of Agricola. I assume, the same goes for his accounts in other works as they seem to be based on detailed research.

[Praefectusclassis]

Jona wrote an article in AW I.1 which he expanded and made available on his site. Tacitus is indeed likely to have served in some military capacity and, yes, had relatives with a strong military career. Most importantly, he wrote for his own social circle: senators, many of whom would have had had military experience. If he made obvious gaffes, he would've looked like an ass. Tacitus doesn't seem to have been the type to go for that image.
Errors are possible, but he must at least have used acceptable terminology, although perhaps not always military jargon.