Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Similar standards for Anthony\'s legions?
#1
Steve McBride of Incitatuscoins was kind enough to send me one in return for some assistance. When I looked at all the examples of the denarii he has of Legio XX, I saw that all the standards were alike, which seemed appropriate. But all the other standard for Legio III and the others were the same as well. Could it be that they actually had similar standards that were differentiated by color, or would it be more likely that this is a limitation of the way the coin dye was made?<br>
<br>
Legion Standards <p>Legio XX<br>
Caput dolet, pedes fetent, Iesum non amo<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#2
Could the coins have been made at a central mint somewhere? If so the dies could have been cut by craftsmen who had a good idea of what a military standard looked like but may have been unaware of the differences between the standards of different legions but still realised the importance of celebrating particular legions on coins in order to retain their loyalty. I believe some studies of military stele from the Rhineland have concluded that many stones were carved in workshops with blank spaces where inscriptions could be carved and were then taken to the places they were to be used, where they would be inscribed with the details of the person to be commemorated and then painted accordingly. If this were the case the sculptors' knowledge of military kit would be sufficient to mean that the stone was recognisable as a soldier. The soldier's friends and freedmen, who actually knew him, could add the inscription and identifying details of hair colour, scars etc in paint, to make the generic soldier figure a representative portrait of the deceased. We may be seeing a similar process with these coins: diecutters could carve a standard design of military standards onto a coin, to identify it as a coin celebrating an army unit and then carve whichever legion's name was needed onto it as the need arose. Most craftsmen I have met have a few standard patterns which cover the majority of their work but which can be varied in detail to produce an infinite variety of specific designs. The coins seem to be of a standard design (on both obverse and reverse sides) - what differs between them is little more than the unit name. I think that sometimes when we concentrate hard on details such as this we forget the impact that standardised designs can have. Most of us today, for example, are familiar with road signs of standardised colours, shapes or sizes. These attributes immediately tell you what sort of sign it is. The specific details vary but the colour, shape or size will automatically catagorise those details. Perhaps a standardised design of military standards was enough to say 'ARMY' and then the specific detail of the unit's name told the holder which unit he or she was supposed to be thinking of at that moment.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#3
I would agree with that, except for the example of Varus, who stamped his name onto coins given to his legions: a blank then would be fine. These are all part of the original die, not stamped. But possibly mass produced by one expert who made all the dies, just varying them by name for each legion? That brings up the interesting idea that the legions didn't mind all having the same representation, which perhaps was Antony's standard? <p>Legio XX<br>
Caput dolet, pedes fetent, Iesum non amo<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#4
By and large, the classic Roman signa are pretty generic, being comprised largely of round phalera on a spearshaft. I doubt any attempt was ever intended to specifically show the standards of a specific legion in his Army. There were probably some actual differences though, for the two surviving LEG XIIII Signa have similar characteristics, to even include identical capricorn images, yet different numbers of phalera discs. Each disc could have been a battle honor, or it is possible the number of discs on the standard could indicate which number century it was in the cohort. A point in favor of this is the fact that no depicted signa has more than six phalera -- the number of centuries in a cohort.<br>
<br>
This is one example to disprove the theory of the "generic" tombstone, and idea I disagree with, and has no basis in fact.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#5
"This is one example to disprove the theory of the "generic" tombstone, and idea I disagree with, and has no basis in fact."<br>
<br>
I thought the trade in both 'quarry-state' pre-created sarcophagi and pre-created architectural elements had been pretty well documented for the Roman era. Or do you just mean military gravestones? The examples of prefabricated stone articles I know of are all civilian, and mostly from the Eastern Med and Italy.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!

Volker Bach
Reply
#6
Dan,<br>
<br>
I did say "many stones", rather than all stones. I fully agree that a number of stele could not have been anything other than specially made. Some random examples of these would be Marcus Caelius, Gnaeus Musius and Genialis (the Raetian imaginifer rather than the cavalryman). At least one of the signifers you mention must also have been made on site rather than a distant workshop, as Mike Bishop has pointed out that Secundus' stele seems to have been rather poorly copied from Faustus' stele. However, there are enough uninscribed standing soldier type stones (normally referred to as 'unfinished') surviving to strongly suggest the possibility of generic soldier stones which were inscribed after puchase alongside specially commissioned stones. Incidentally, on the front of six phalerae being the maximum shown on a signum, the late second or early third century AD stele of Aurelius Alexandrus appears to show seven phalerae on each of the signa pictured.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=crispvs>Crispvs</A> at: 11/26/04 12:04 am<br></i>
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers.  :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
Reply
#7
Unlike the civilian market, because the legions and cohorts likely had their own stone masons to undertake building projects, I tend to think the gravestones of soldiers were likely made by soldiers, rather than civilians. This would also account for a generally high accuracy in the depiction of military equipment, even if the artist wasn't a particularly good sculptor, as is also evident. In fact, this again suggests the tombstones coming from a military workshop, as it seems to be that "figural" gravestones of Roman civilians are uniformly better executed than military ones, which range from crude to excellent workmanship.<br>
This would still not negate the fact that stocks of "unfinished" tombstones would exist. In fact, this seems to confirm the military connection. After a battle, casualties are to be expected, so it would be prudent to have plently of "blank" tombstones in supply in case of a hard fight that results in many casualties. It kind of reminds of back in Desert Storm of the 1st Sergeants supply truck that was filled with body bags, "just in case". (fortunately, none actually had to be used).<br>
Dan<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply


Forum Jump: