Roman Marines

[Praefectusclassis]

Interesting discussion anyway!<br>
Tacitus says during one point in the Batavian revolt, the Batavians among the rowers prevented the sailors (nautae) and marines (propugnatores - defenders) from doing their jobs. This is a provincial fleet though, where the situation might well be different.<br>
The pay status of naval troops is insecure: we have only proof that the viaticum was 3 aurei for them too. It is true that service conditions were undoubtedly better in the legions.<br>
Being a soldier doesn't necessarily mean you're a citizen, see all auxiliary tombstones: milites, but only citizens on discharge.<br>
The citizen-status of the troops joining I and II Adiutrix is a difficult one. We have several diplomata giving citizen status to legionaries of those units in 69 and 70AD. That does indeed indicate that they were time-served naval troops who transferred to I and II Adiutrix immediately before discharge, then got their citizenship. However, there are no diplomas <em>at all</em> of these legions from later on (which is what you'd expect if these soldiers got their citizenship after service). That may be due to the vagaries of history, after all we have only (fragments of) about 1000 diplomas out of an estimated 200,000 granted. It may also mean that all non-time-served-troops got their citizenship at the time of the discharge of the other ones.<br>
Epibata seems to mean 'person on deck', not necessarily in a fighting function. But that inscription is for a 'discens epibata'. Discens means 'learning to be', so it must be a specialized job. <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Nathan Ross]

With regard to the Praeneste relief - this has been interpreted as representing the battle of Actium - the crocodile on the ship's prow being supposedly an 'Egyptian' emblem. If this is the case, the troops on board would be Antonian legionaries, who perhaps would have had a rather Hellenic appearance after many years campaigning in the east - hence the 'attic' helmets etc. Antony did have one legion called (on his 'legionary denarii') Classicae, perhaps meaning that they were raised as marines (or, like the later Adiutrix, were raised <em>from</em> naval personnel...)<br>
<br>
Here's another naval relief - troops with montefortino (I'd say) helmets and typical republican shields:<br>
<br>
<img src="http://www.romaeterna.org/galleria/sala2/foto1.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
And another - this time, along with the oval scuta, the soldiers are wearing what could be coolus helmets (? - although they seem to have a sort of flared rim... ...) and carrying broad-headed spears (or are they oars?):<br>
<br>
<img src="http://www.romaeterna.org/galleria/sala1/foto4.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Nice pics Nathan! Trouble with unidentified sculpture or pics like from Pompeii, they probably refer back to Actium or even the glorious Punic Wars. <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I had a delve in my library and came up with this from Vegetius. He was writing in c. 390 AD about the "good old days" when the Legionary infantry was all-powerful.(Latin phrases in brackets, translation by Milner).<br>
"Ch.32 The prefect of the fleet at Misenum was in command of the warships stationed in Campania, whilst those located on the Ionian Sea were retained by the prefect of the fleet in Ravenna. Under them each were ten tribunes appointed one for each cohort. Each warship had a single captain (navarchus) ie a kind of merchant shipowner, who was exempted from other duties of sailors and put in a daily responsibility and unfailing efforts to training oarsmen (remiges) and marines (milites)."<br>
"Ch 37 The sailors and marines put on Venetian blue uniforms also, so as to lie hidden with greater ease when scouting by day as by night."<br>
"Ch.44 Land warfare requires many types of arms; but naval warfare demands more kinds of arms, including machines and torsion-engines as if the fighting were on walls and towers. What could be crueller than a naval battle, where men perish by water and by fire? So particular care should be given to protective armour, so that soldiers may be protected with mail/ scale shirts (cataphracti), cuirasses (loricati),helmets, and also greaves. No one can complain about the weight of armour, since he fights standing on ships. Stronger and larger shields (scuta) are also taken up against the impact of stones. Besides drags (falces=falxes)and grapnels (harpagones) and other naval kinds of weapons, there are arrows, javelins, slings, sling-staves, lead-weighted darts, mangonels, catapults and hand-catapults (scorpiones), shooting darts and stones at each other. More dangerously still, those confident of their courage move up their warships alongside, throw out bridges and cross to the enemies to fight it out there hand-to-hand, or comminus as it is called. On larger warships, they even erect fortifications and towers, so that they may easily wound or kill their enemies from higher decks as if from a wall. Arrows wrapped in "burning-oil", tow, sulphur, and bitumen are implanted burning by catapults in the bellies of hostile ships, and soon set light to the planking payed with wax, pitch, and resin- so much kindling for fires. Some are slain by steel and stones, others are forced to burn to death in the water. Among so many forms of death the bitterest fate is that the bodies are left unburied to be eaten by fish."<br>
"Ch 46... three types of weapon contribute most towards victory- beams, drags, and battle-axes.The "beam" is the name for a thin, long shaft like a yard-arm, which hangs from the mast and has an iron head at both ends...they violently drive this instead of a battering ram. The "drag" (falx) is the term for a very sharp iron blade curved like a sickle and mounted on long poles. It quickly cuts the rigging from which the yard-arm is suspended, and the sails collapse rendering the warship slow and useless. The "battle-axe" (bipennis=double axe) is an axe which has on both sides a broad and very sharp iron blade. By means of these, in the midst of battle very skilled sailors or marines in small skiffs secretly cut the cables binding the adversaries' steering gear. Once this is done, the ship is captured immediately, being disarmed and disabled. For what escape is left for him who has lost his rudder?"<br>
<br>
To me, this sounds like an eye-witness account- for example, weapons such as weighted darts were very much a Late Roman weapon. It also would necessitate separate specialist training for troops who were to fight on sea. So, marines existed in the early Roman period- they seem to have existed in the Late Roman period. The balance of probability points strongly to them having existed between these dates.<br>
<br>
Hope this is helpful. Jasper- who is the audience for your paper?<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Paulus <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=paulusbrittanicus>Paulus Brittanicus</A> at: 12/18/04 8:33 pm<br></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Vegetius is always terribly tricky to use: sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. There's a paper about those Venetian blues in the last Roman Frontier Studies book. I'll look that up.<br>
As to the structure of the fleets in Ravenna & Misenum according to Vegetius: he is off by a mile there, probably confused by the Legiones Adiutrices.<br>
The paper's audience is the worst: ancient military historians, all the scary profs.<br>
<br>
---- Edit ----<br>
Found the article: Boris Rankov, Now you see it, now you don't. The British Fleet in Vegetius IV.37 (the painted ships).<br>
He completely and convincingly breaks down the believability of this chapter in V.<br>
However, that does not mean that there weren't any marines in the later empire. There were, and yes, that makes the question of the period in between (which IS 350 years!) the more interesting.<br>
<p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jasperoorthuys>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 12/18/04 10:55 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Yes, a scary audience.<br>
I'm interested in Rankov's conclusions (even though I still think of him as a Oxford rower than an academic- which makes his comments perhaps even more appropriate!). What did he say?<br>
On the 350 year gap- yes, a long time. My view is that the balance of probability is that they did exist- but is there unequivocable tangible, written, or sculptural proof that I know of...<br>
Re the orichalcum/ non-rusting helmet argument- this occurred to me when I was lucky enough to have a brief trip on an ocean racing yacht (very quiet sail round the Solent in UK). Everything was geared up not to rust, including a fair bit of brass- and this got me thinking...<br>
A rust-minimising outfit would be a helmet as above, bronze/ copper alloy scale body armour, and a shield with brass edging. Belt fittings in bronze, with tinning. The Gladius and pugio/ other knife would then be the only items that would need to be kept rust free. And sailors tend to be practical!<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=paulusbrittanicus>Paulus Brittanicus</A> at: 12/20/04 10:03 am<br></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Paul,<br>
Send me an email at JasperATromanarmy.com and I'll get you that article. <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Jasper,<br>
<br>
Thanks. Rankov makes some good points -particularly on oared vessels given his personal experience. But his argument does not negate the whole chapter- simply the parts he chooses to comment on. For example the description of the weapons in a later chapter- which (for me at least ) has an immediacy that I do not get in earlier chapters remains unnegated.<br>
Secondly, re the blue tunics and sails. Rankov negates the reason given by Vegetius for the sails and tunics being blue as camoflage would not work. This simply proves that Vegetius gave an incorrect explanation. It neither proves nor disproves that marines and sailors wore blue. There would be a high possibility that Vegetius would get a colour right (personal observation?) - but whether he got the rationale right is a different thing. I doubt if I tried to give the reason why modern day army tunic desert camoflage is the way it is that I would get it right!<br>
An alternative is , of course, that both description and rationale are wrong, and that Vegetius simply liked the story.<br>
So- blue tunics and sails remain a possibility.<br>
<br>
The central question for me is still- were Marines (as a specialist unit, with particular training, as opposed to legionaries being put on a boat and told to do what they could) in existence between Ad1 and AD 350? My view would be yes (probably!).<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Re troops on board ship, a couple of images from the Vatican Vergil (c. AD 400), depicting Aeneas on board ship.<br>
<img src="http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~amiddltn/holdall/vatv39v.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
And this one of Aeneas approaching Sicily.<br>
<img src="http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~amiddltn/holdall/vatv31v.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
Not exactly taking the marines argument forward , but about 20 years after Vegetius.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Not hard to find armed troops depicted aboard ship, but as said before: what (when) do they represent.<br>
Just to extend our source material for this discussion, I have added a few more naval troops to the imagebase (here). They are low-quality photocopies (which is why they weren't in there yet), but I'll add them in to keep this going some more.<br>
<p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

Off topic I know, but I notice that Valerius Capito, T. Taronius Celer and M. Iunius Sabinianus all have aprons such as we might expect to see on first century military stelae, whilst all three have been dated (securely or otherwise) to the third century AD. I am not aware of any such aprons being shown on the stelae of 'land based' soldiers much after the late first century. Although they are depicted on Trajan's column they are totally absent from the Adamklissi metopes. Any thoughts?<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

How about imitation of older more or less local tombstones? Compare for instance Valens from Corinth. Also, the belt (and perhaps attached apron) is THE sign of being a military man. There are indications that naval personnel stressed that fact more. On the other hand, have you seen the knotted belt on Rufinus? Very rare! <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

"However, to be strict, that is not necessarily a case for 'marines' equipment'". I have finally found a picture of the third Imperial-Gallic type I in Robinson(see pictures of the other two above), and the helmet in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum (very similar to the Guttmann helmet but with "eyebrows") actually has an inscription on the left side of the neck-guard reading "LEG I ADIV" (Legio I Adiutrix) "C(enturia) MVMI LOLIANI" and on the right side "LEG(io) I" plus "L. LVCRETI CELERIS" (inscribed twice- you obviously coulddn't be too careful with these ex-naval legionaries).<br>
So we have an indisputable link with these legions. Add the fact that these helmets were all found in known Legio I (or II) Adiutrix postings, the rust free material, and there seems to be a strong possibility that these are marine equipment helmets.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Paulus <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

I think that it is still not disproven that these helmets could be 'emergency' types produced in 69-70. What I'd be interested in is the production of orichalcum. Is that easier to make than iron? <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[L C Cinna]

Found this German page of reenactors reconstructing the rhine fleet.<br>
<br>
www.classis-germanica.de/...seite.html <p></p><i></i>