Mailed soldiers on the Arch of Galerius

[M.P.]

The identification of the mailed figures on the arch of Galerius has been often discussed by modern scholars but never with serious proofs. Alföldy thought that they were clibanarii introduced in the roman army by the reign of Aurelian, but there are no sources that tell such a thing and the late descriptions of clibanarii do not fit with the soldiers depicted. Eadie and Robinson stated that they were in fact catafractarii. All agree that the relief depicts mailed cavalrymen but several theories on their origins and status are put forward. Today, the most widespread thesis see in this soldiers Sarmatians auxiliaries (Rostovtzeff 1913, 332-333 ; Sulimirski 1970, 31 ; Maenchen-Helfen 245 ; Laubscher 1975 47-48 ; Wilkes 258 ; Mielczarek 1993, 97). But there are no reasons to think such a thing : spangenhelme and dracones existed in the roman army in the third century and were widespread in regular units in the fourth century ; some of the soldiers depicted are foots and we know that Sarmatians only served as horsemen in the roman army ; they bear heavy round shields, which contradict with the Sarmatian two-handed use of the lance. The sarmato-bosporan long squamata was also widespread in this period (see Maxence's horsemen on the arch of Contantine ).

Aurelius Victor (De Caesaribus, 39, 34), Rufus Festus (25), Eutrope (IX, 25) wich are often quoted by the followers of the Sarmatian thesis only tell that before his second campaign against Narses, Galerius filled his army with danubian recruits. But they don't say that they were mercenaries, auxiliaries or equites singulares of foreign origin. They merely could have been pannonian or moesian legionaries. And we can understand that after more than two centuries of contacts with Sarmatians and Dacians, the exercitus Pannoniae became influenced by its ennemies...

I my opinion, the thesis of the praetorian guard should be also taken into consideration. Egyptian papyri show that Galerius had detachments of such elite troop in his comitatus around 293-96. Since the antonine times, on historical reliefs, the praetorians were often distinguished from the other troops by the wearing of loricae squamatae. It is also the case on the arch of Constantine (the drowning guards of Maxence aren't equites singulares Augusti, which are never depicted with this kind of armour - even in campaign, they wear a mere sagum : see the arch of Galerius). The praetorians were also often associated with the scenes of adlocutio. The absence of signa cannot be considered as a discriminatory evidence cause the reliefs only show uexilla.

Your opinion about that ?

[Dan Howard]

Where is the mail? All I see is scale armour in the above photo.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Maxime,

the most widespread thesis see in this soldiers Sarmatians auxiliaries [..]
But there are no reasons to think such a thing : spangenhelme and dracones existed in the roman army in the third century and were widespread in regular units in the fourth century ; some of the soldiers depicted are foots and we know that Sarmatians only served as horsemen in the roman army ; they bear heavy round shields, which contradict with the Sarmatian two-handed use of the lance. The sarmato-bosporan long squamata was also widespread in this period (see Maxence's horsemen on the arch of Contantine ).
[..]
I my opinion, the thesis of the praetorian guard should be also taken into consideration.

First of all, why would the theory that these are Sarmatians be without proof? In my opinion, these troops (especially at this time, AD311) could indeed be other types, but why would they not be Sarmatians? I see no infantry, but especially an emperor surrounded by a cavalry unit:

True, some are dismounted, but when you look at the whole scene, it's clear that this is cavalry.
You are certainly right about the draco being used throughout the Roman army at this time. You are also right (I think) about the shields, which indeed look too large for cavalry using the two-handed spear. But these men may have been a bodygaurd of scutati, and therefore might have been in a dual role of cavalry and dismounted guardsmen.

On the other hand, Galerius campaigned earlier against the Sarmatians and it could be argued that this was a personal guard of Sarmatian origins.
Also, I do not see enough evidence to attach a unit of (mounted) praetorian guardsmen to Galerius person. After Diocletian split the Empire, I think the praetorian guard resided at Rome, and would therefore not have been in the presence of the Eastern emperors.

[Ross Cowan]

Robert,

Diocletian certainly had praetorians with him in the East (Lactantius refers to them doing very nasty things to Christians); Carausius' 'legionary' coinage records legio II Parthica and a praetorian cohort - possibly units that had defected to him from the field army of Maximian; and Zosimus (?) refers to praetorians with Constantius in Britain. I'm on holiday and don't have my notes to hand, but I'm pretty sure each 'tetrarch' had his contingent of praetorians (cf. Aurelius Victor 39.47?). The remainder at Rome felt slighted, hence their support for Maxentius.

Cheers,

R!

[M.P.]

Hi Robert,

As Ross told, the tetrarchs did have praetorian detachments in their field army. About Galerius, I already quoted the papyrologic documention of Egypt, were he was between 293 and 296. Indeed, one papyrus records equites promoti domini nostri (former equites praetoriani) among his troops (see Hoffmann 1969/70, 246 and Speidel 1994, 73). There were also equites singulares Augusti with the new title of comites dominorum nostrorum (P. Oxy I, 43 recto).

About Diocletian, I remember that Lactance tells that his praetoriani helped to crush the church of Nicomedia.

Since the cavalry "reforms" of Gallienus and Aurelian, the equites praetoriani formed a second imperial horse guard, distinct from the praetorian infantry. If, as you said, only cavalrymen are depicted on the adlocutio scene of the Arch (not sure, I only see 2 horses for 18 soldiers...), it could be a detachment of this praetorian cavalry (equites singulares are already depicted, why the other guard would not ?).

On the Sarmatians, I didn't say that the thesis must be rejected. But not even one source mentions Sarmatians in the army of Galerius. Lactance states (De mort. pers., 38, 6) :

Almost all his guardsmen came from the tribe who, at the time of the vicennalia, was driven from its homeland by the Goths and had given itself up to Galerius - truly, it was a bane for mankind that those who fled the slavery of barbarians should lord it over Romans.

Nam fere nullus stipator in latere ei nisi ex gente eorum qui a Gothis tempore uicennali um terris suis pulsi Maximiano se tradiderant malo generis humani, ut illi barbarum seruitutem fugientes in Romanos dominarentur.

First of all, this passage refers to the year 303 (vicennalia of Diocletian and Maximian). It does not concern the arch of Galerius which was realised between 298 and 303 (see Rothman, "Thematic organization of the panel reliefs on the Arch of Galerius"). Moreover, the natio in question may be the Carpi, who were defeated by Galerius in 303 (on this, see Barnes), not the Sarmatians.

Then, why the Sarmatians would be privilegied ?

An interesting aproach would be to compare this relief with the warrior-types of the other panels, but they are too much damaged...

[M.P.]

PS : Do we have reliable informations about who were the scutarii and how they were equiped during the tetrarchic period ? Lactantius pretends that Galerius was scutarius before becoming Caesar.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Ross,

Diocletian certainly had praetorians with him in the East (Lactantius refers to them doing very nasty things to Christians); Carausius' 'legionary' coinage records legio II Parthica and a praetorian cohort - possibly units that had defected to him from the field army of Maximian; and Zosimus (?) refers to praetorians with Constantius in Britain. I'm on holiday and don't have my notes to hand, but I'm pretty sure each 'tetrarch' had his contingent of praetorians (cf. Aurelius Victor 39.47?). The remainder at Rome felt slighted, hence their support for Maxentius.

Ah, but then I never said that the praetorians never set foot in the East! Of course they did. I don’t doubt that Diocletian had praetorians, when he started out as single ruler he would of course have used the praetorians. But were they split up like you suggest? Constantius could have received a part of them as Western caesar.
I'm looking forward to reading your notes about that though, because I'm not sure if the 'corps' of the praetorians was really divided up like that. You think that there was even a unit left at Rome that was not part of the group accompanying each tetrarch?
If you're correct I may have to change my mind. :wink:

Hi Maxime,

As Ross told, the tetrarchs did have praetorian detachments in their field army. About Galerius, I already quoted the papyrologic documention of Egypt, were he was between 293 and 296. Indeed, one papyrus records equites promoti domini nostri (former equites praetoriani) among his troops (see Hoffmann 1969/70, 246 and Speidel 1994, 73). There were also equites singulares Augusti with the new title of comites dominorum nostrorum (P. Oxy I, 43 recto).

I’ll await more quotes, but I am already getting the feeling that we are accepting that praetorians and equites promoti, equites singulari Augusti and comites dominorum nostrorum were just one and the same, or indistinguishable. I am at this moment not prepared to lump them all together. Sure, they were all elite guard regiments and probably many soldiers may have served in the praetorians and others, but we might be too rash when we say that one guard regiment is like another.

About Diocletian, I remember that Lactance tells that his praetoriani helped to crush the church of Nicomedia.

See the comment above, I fully expect Diocletian to have used them.

Since the cavalry "reforms" of Gallienus and Aurelian, the equites praetoriani formed a second imperial horse guard, distinct from the praetorian infantry. If, as you said, only cavalrymen are depicted on the adlocutio scene of the Arch (not sure, I only see 2 horses for 18 soldiers...), it could be a detachment of this praetorian cavalry (equites singulares are already depicted, why the other guard would not ?).

True, it’s not sure that we see a cavalry unit, and the shields may be a point there. But then I also said that they could be mounted infantry (which would also be possible for a bodyguard unit).

On the Sarmatians, I didn't say that the thesis must be rejected. But not even one source mentions Sarmatians in the army of Galerius. Lactance states (De mort. pers., 38, 6) :
[..]
First of all, this passage refers to the year 303 (vicennalia of Diocletian and Maximian). It does not concern the arch of Galerius which was realised between 298 and 303 (see Rothman, "Thematic organization of the panel reliefs on the Arch of Galerius"). Moreover, the natio in question may be the Carpi, who were defeated by Galerius in 303 (on this, see Barnes), not the Sarmatians.
Then, why the Sarmatians would be privilegied ?

Galerius campaigned against the Sarmatians in 294, he defeated the Carpi (and Goths and Bastarnae) in 297, and in 299 he defeated both the Carpi and the Sarmatians, and he did again defeat the Sarmatians in 305. I think that it would be very much possible that the nation in question was the Sarmatians, whom are often mentioned as being used by the Roman army (even after a defeat, as those commanded off to Britain by a certain Lucius Artorius Castus) or being resettled all over the empire. The Carpi never figure as prominent as that, and may have been a small group compared to the Sarmatians.

[Urselius]

In the Maxentius' troops being driven into the Tiber frieze on the Arch of Constantine:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... CF0032.JPG

a Maxentian cavalryman wearing a long-sleeved scale coat (centre-right in the river), he is holding the reins of his horse whose head can be seen to his right, has quite a substantial shield. Apart from the pseudo attic helmets the troops depicted are remarkably similar to the ones surrounding Galerius.

I don't think that shield size can be taken as precluding cavalry. Also, on the Galerius relief the grip-pont on the shield showing its inside face doesn't look like the typical infantry horizontal central grip, but that may be a personal interpretation.

[M.P.]

Robert,

I’ll await more quotes, but I am already getting the feeling that we are accepting that praetorians and equites promoti, equites singulari Augusti and comites dominorum nostrorum were just one and the same, or indistinguishable. I am at this moment not prepared to lump them all together. Sure, they were all elite guard regiments and probably many soldiers may have served in the praetorians and others, but we might be too rash when we say that one guard regiment is like another.

If you are looking for further arguments about the identification, see Hoffmann 1969/70, 246. His explanation is all the more strong and the sources are entirely quoted.

Galerius campaigned against the Sarmatians in 294, he defeated the Carpi (and Goths and Bastarnae) in 297, and in 299 he defeated both the Carpi and the Sarmatians, and he did again defeat the Sarmatians in 305.

In fact, Galerius was in Egypt and Syria between 293 and 298-299. The victory against the Sarmatians during the year 294 was held by Diocletian (Barnes 1981, 17 ; 1982, 50-1). The misunderstanding comes from the fact that the tetrarchs shared their victory titles. Galerius couldn't also have waged a war against Carpi in 297 (what is your source about that ?) : he was campaigning against Narses. Same thing about the year 299, when he just arrived at Thessalonica after the conclusion of his peace treaty with Persians. His first personnal victory over Sarmatians (and Carpi) took place in 302 (Lactantius, De mort. pers., 13, 2 ; RIC 6, 510, Thessalonica : Victoriae sarmaticae). As I said, his military activities in 303 were focused on Carpi. As Lactantius states that the natio who surrendered in 303 filled up his personnal guard (comites, stipatores, satellites), we have more reasons to think that they were in fact Carpi. As I said, Sarmatians didn't fought as infantry, or in romano-celtic hasta/scutum cavalry fashion. But this was the case with the Carpi, who were mainly descendants of Dacians. We also know from a bunch of sources that Galerius was of "Dacian" origin (notably Eutropius IX, 22, 1). This could explain the ethnic composition of his personnal guard.

The Carpi never figure as prominent as that, and may have been a small group compared to the Sarmatians.

Yes, but quite threatening if you consider that they were the Dacians' heirs, and if you keep in mind the number of wars which were waged against them during the third century. The evacutation of the Dacian territory during the reign of Aurelian also arose new problems with these populations.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Maxime,

If you are looking for further arguments about the identification, see Hoffmann 1969/70, 246. His explanation is all the more strong and the sources are entirely quoted.

Actually, Hoffmann argues that the Equites promoti were probably one formation from which later units developed that were mentioned in due course in the Notitia Dignitatum. Hoffmann raises the possibility that the original unit could have been the praetorian cavalry, but he immediately mentions the problem that these Equites promoti had to have been raised in the East, not in the West. Hoffmann even speculates that Diocletian could possibly have taken a part of them East, but it’s clear that he has found no evidence for that possibility.

In fact, Galerius was in Egypt and Syria between 293 and 298-299.

I don’t think so. He could well have been in the East during parts of the year, and elsewhere during the rest of the year. This was quite common for the tetrarchs and some of the emperors after them. I see no reason to assume that Galerius resided in one spot only during the whole of the year.

Galerius couldn't also have waged a war against Carpi in 297 (what is your source about that ?)

Hoffmann. Part II, p. 217. he has Galerius campaign against the Iazyges in 294,and against the Carpi, Bastarnae and Goths in 297 (but mentions it could have been in 295 as well).

As I said, Sarmatians didn't fought as infantry, or in romano-celtic hasta/scutum cavalry fashion.

Didn’t they? Even the Huns had infantry, I see no reason to think that the Sarmatians were a tribe solely on horseback.
But like I said, I see no reason to opt either for Sarmatians or for praetorians.

[Ross Cowan]

Robert,

I find it hard to understand why you are so adamant that these troops, most certainly guardsman, and probably infantry rather than cavalry, could not have been praetorians. Why not? Inscriptions demonstrate that the Guard remained the most senior unit in the army during the reign of Diocletian. The praetorians in Rome during the Tetrarchic period were merely the remansores from the ten cohorts. The evidence strongly suggests that each Augustus and Caesar had his own contingent (the praetorian equivalent of legionary vexillations) and they accompanied the emperors on campaign - some of these guards units may have been granted new titles, but they were praetorians.

I'm off the to beach now. ;-) )

Cheers,

R!

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Ross,

I find it hard to understand why you are so adamant that these troops, most certainly guardsman, and probably infantry rather than cavalry, could not have been praetorians.

And so you should be, because I don't feel that adament. Must be a tone of typing that slipped in... :|
So far my point was more than they could be Sarmatians instead of some other guard unit - so why should they be praetorians? We went on debating Sarmatians after that. I was kind of awaiting more information (lacking better info myself) about praetorians being present in the East as well.

But why infantry rather than cavalry?

Why not? Inscriptions demonstrate that the Guard remained the most senior unit in the army during the reign of Diocletian. The praetorians in Rome during the Tetrarchic period were merely the remansores from the ten cohorts. The evidence strongly suggests that each Augustus and Caesar had his own contingent (the praetorian equivalent of legionary vexillations) and they accompanied the emperors on campaign - some of these guards units may have been granted new titles, but they were praetorians.

OK, that sounds fine by me. So you're saying that praetorian units were indeed present in the East as well. In the guise of other guard units, being renamed praetorians. I was under the impression that the tetrarchs began raising new guard units, allowing the praetorians to be degraded until Constantine disbanded them.
So they could have been praetorians. Or guard units. Or whatever guard unit was raised by any of the tetrarchs. Or Sarmatians. :wink:

I'm off the to beach now. ;-) )

Have fun! :mrgreen:

[comitatus (Marco)]

I agree with Mr. Ross Cowan about the division of praetorians. H. Elton (see articles "Warfare and the Military in the Age of Constantine" [Cambridge, 2006] and "Roman Military Forces from the Third to the Seventh Centuries" [Cambridge, 2007]) says that with the creation of tetrarchy in 293 the praetorians cohorts were split between all emperors, and that Constantine I disbanded Maxentius' praetorians after the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312, Licinius' (and probably his own) after Chrysopolis in 324.

Regards,
Marco.

[jho]

I do not think that it will be possible to identify these people with any reasonable degree of certainty, in particular as the soldiers in the battle scenes of the arch look completely different (with the soldiers most similar to the traditional image of a roman soldier actually fighting AGAINST Galerius).

However, we should keep in mind that there are actually quite similar depictions of soldiers in Rome broadly from this period: the two soldiers on the fragment in the Vatican museums (undated but believed to come from the arch of Diocletian) and the "Egyptian" soldiers on paintings in the catacombs (Graham Sumner's latest book has the references). This may indicate that they were a common sight in Rome and therefore regulars of guard status but cavalry (based on the catacomb paintings). However, all of this is very speculative.

[Pontius Agrippa]

Here is a better pic: