Auxiliary standards

[ValentinianVictrix]

Not wishing to hijack this thread with differing arguments, you may be interested in reading this link-

<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24290&start=40">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=24290&start=40<!-- l

[D B Campbell]

I need to get an understanding of what an auxiliary cohort's standard would have looked like by comparison with that of a legion cohort.

The legionary cohort didn't have a standard. The signiferi of the Roman army held this post within the centuria: each cohort had six signiferi. Nevertheless, as autonomous units, the auxiliary cohorts clearly had a requirement for a standard which encapsulated the spirit of the unit (as the aquila encapsulated the spirit of the legion).

In Ancient Warfare magazine III.6 (Dec/Jan 2010), I have suggested that the auxiliary vexillarius fulfilled this function. (This was one of the posts held, for example, by Tiberius Claudius Maximus during his meteoric rise: AE 1969/70, 583.)

It seems that, besides the centurial signiferi and the unit vexillarius, auxiliary cohorts also had an imaginifer, to carry the image of the emperor.

As far as I know, we have no idea what the vexillum would have looked like. But it's interesting that, in parallel to the legions venerating their aquilae, we hear of one auxiliary cohort venerating its aprunculi ("little boars"). I wonder if the vexillum of this particular unit (cohors I Gallorum) carried an image of charging boars (a known "Celtic" motif).

[markhebb]

I need to get an understanding of what an auxiliary cohort's standard would have looked like by comparison with that of a legion cohort.

The legionary cohort didn't have a standard. The signiferi of the Roman army held this post within the centuria: each cohort had six signiferi. Nevertheless, as autonomous units, the auxiliary cohorts clearly had a requirement for a standard which encapsulated the spirit of the unit (as the aquila encapsulated the spirit of the legion).

In Ancient Warfare magazine III.6 (Dec/Jan 2010), I have suggested that the auxiliary vexillarius fulfilled this function. (This was one of the posts held, for example, by Tiberius Claudius Maximus during his meteoric rise: AE 1969/70, 583.)

It seems that, besides the centurial signiferi and the unit vexillarius, auxiliary cohorts also had an imaginifer, to carry the image of the emperor.

As far as I know, we have no idea what the vexillum would have looked like. But it's interesting that, in parallel to the legions venerating their aquilae, we hear of one auxiliary cohort venerating its aprunculi ("little boars"). I wonder if the vexillum of this particular unit (cohors I Gallorum) carried an image of charging boars (a known "Celtic" motif).

Duncan I think there is an article by Rostovtzeff which is useful on the appearance of the vexillum - 'Vexillum and Victory' (JRS from memory though I could be wrong).

[D B Campbell]

Duncan I think there is an article by Rostovtzeff which is useful on the appearance of the vexillum - 'Vexillum and Victory' (JRS from memory though I could be wrong).

You are quite right. (JRS XXXII, 1942.) And you have reminded me that we have an image of just such an auxiliary vexillarius from Dura Europos. The standard that he carries, besides supporting the square cloth banner (vexillum), is surmounted by a decoration of some sort. I wonder if the First Cohort of Gauls had a boar figurine (hence, the aprunculi) on top of their vexillum pole?

[markhebb]

Duncan I think there is an article by Rostovtzeff which is useful on the appearance of the vexillum - 'Vexillum and Victory' (JRS from memory though I could be wrong).

You are quite right. (JRS XXXII, 1942.) And you have reminded me that we have an image of just such an auxiliary vexillarius from Dura Europos. The standard that he carries, besides supporting the square cloth banner (vexillum), is surmounted by a decoration of some sort. I wonder if the First Cohort of Gauls had a boar figurine (hence, the aprunculi) on top of their vexillum pole?

I thought so - I've used some of his comments for a section I am working on in my thesis dealing with the political role of standards in the maintenance of military loyalty in the 3rd-4th Century. Obviously much of the significance was already established in earlier centuries although I think I've detected a shift with the appearance of purple - as opposed to red - vexilla, and the introduction of purple material onto dragon standards. This is fascinating because if I'm right it shows that emperors were moving to make standards even more politicised (if I can use that term) than they already were.

[Robert Vermaat]

I think I've detected a shift with the appearance of purple - as opposed to red - vexilla, and the introduction of purple material onto dragon standards. This is fascinating because if I'm right it shows that emperors were moving to make standards even more politicised (if I can use that term) than they already were.

Don't misunderstand this, but the colour 'purpure' from the sources is not always the same as our modern colour purple. It's also a reddish colour, the name also being a synonym for 'red/blooded'. It is therefore possible that the colour of the standards was not literally purple, but still red.

A few examples from this period where the writer uses the word 'purpure' to mean 'blood':

Pliny already discussed the colour purple as a being the colour of blood:

Natural History, Book 9:
"For Tyrian purple, the wool is first soaked with sea purple for a preliminary pale dressing, and then completely transformed with whelk dye. Its highest glory consists in the color of congealed blood, blackish at first glance when held up to the light; this is the origin of Homer's phrase 'blood of purple hue'."

Prudentius (348-c.a. 405 AD) wrote about the dead St. Vincent:

Peristephanon V, 337-340:
"One covers with kisses the double cuts made by the claws, another eagerly licks the purple gore on the body".

Sidonius for instance wrote:

Panegyric on Maiorianus:
"Purple-hued is her robe, which a clasp pierces with the bite of its twisted tooth ; that part of her mantle which her breast throws off is gathered up by a jewel under her ample bosom"

and

Panegyric on Anthemius:
"and let the star of her deified father rejoice that Euphemia his daughter is robed in the purple of her ancestors"

[ValentinianVictrix]

Don't misunderstand this, but the colour 'purpure' from the sources is not always the same as our modern colour purple. It's also a reddish colour, the name also being a synonym for 'red/blooded'. It is therefore possible that the colour of the standards was not literally purple, but still red.

However, as I have discussed in a previous post, my assertion is that the Draco standards were all purple in colour and appear to have perhaps been a symbolism of the Emperor, even if he were not present, much the same as the Eagles were the representation of the might of the Legiones.

[Robert Vermaat]

However, as I have discussed in a previous post, my assertion is that the Draco standards were all purple in colour and appear to have perhaps been a symbolism of the Emperor, even if he were not present, much the same as the Eagles were the representation of the might of the Legiones.

I know you did, but apart from some sources who describe that the draco of the emperor was 'purple' 9and see my earlier post), there is no source who confirms that
a) all dracos had a 'purple' tail or
b) all dracos were to be compared to the eagle
Eagles were never the symbol of the emperor, so why would a draco be that? Plus, if every cohort had a draco, how could we even compare that to the eagle in terms of symbolism?

[ValentinianVictrix]

However, as I have discussed in a previous post, my assertion is that the Draco standards were all purple in colour and appear to have perhaps been a symbolism of the Emperor, even if he were not present, much the same as the Eagles were the representation of the might of the Legiones.

I know you did, but apart from some sources who describe that the draco of the emperor was 'purple' 9and see my earlier post), there is no source who confirms that
a) all dracos had a 'purple' tail or
b) all dracos were to be compared to the eagle
Eagles were never the symbol of the emperor, so why would a draco be that? Plus, if every cohort had a draco, how could we even compare that to the eagle in terms of symbolism?

Whithout appearing to be overflating my ego, I believe I am the only person to have made this connection, and I am astonished that no historian, including Matthews, has examined this matter as I believe it really merits further investigation. It may well be that as the Roman state became 'Christianised' that another means had to be found to represent the Emperor, as human representation such as imagio's may have fallen out of favour as they may have been reserved soley to represent Christ himself.

Just because no source confirms what I have stated does not disprove it, only that perhaps the sources are there but no historian has bothered to make the link.

[Robert Vermaat]

I've posted my answer to this question in the thread about the draco. I think it's better places there, while we continue about auxiliary standards here.