Cornuti - or not?

[Nathan Ross]

I've often read that the late Roman auxilia unit named the Cornuti were one of the first of their kind, that they were raised by Constantine from 'barbarian' Germans and that they appear on his Arch in Rome.

The Arch "gives prominence to the German contingent of the Cornuti," says Michael Grant (The Emperor Constantine, 1993, p.70).

"The Cornuti," writes Paul Stephenson (Constantine, Unconquered Emperor, Christian Victor, 2011), "played a decisive role in Constantine's Italian campaign of 312." They are "clearly depicted on the Arch of Constantine, wearing their horned helmets and carrying shields with their emblem, two confronted goat's heads."

Michael Speidel (in Ancient Germanic Warriors, 2002, p.41) sees the Cornuti as Germanic 'buck warriors': "wearing horned helmets [they] stand out on several reliefs of Constantine's Arch".

Where does this idea about the Cornuti come from, and what evidence is there for it?

The source for many of these claims is Andrew Alföldi's 1959 paper Cornuti: A Teutonic Contingent in the Service of Constantine the Great and Its Decisive Role in the Battle at the Milvian Bridge (Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 13). This derives from a much earlier (1935) paper in German by the same author.

The gist if this paper is that the Arch shows front-line troops with horned helmets in Constantine's army, and also a shield with facing animal heads similar to that of the Cornuti in the Notitia Dignitatum. Assuming that the name derives from 'horned ones', and therefore 'he-goats', Alföldi sees the goat-horned helmets and the animal-head shields as evidence that this unit was the vanguard of Constantine's army.

"We may, therefore, conclude" he says (p.174) "that the heroes of the great battle were the Moorish cavalry and the cornuti alone... The adoption by the Roman army of the barbarian shield-emblem of the cornuti seems to stem from Constantine's gratitude towards these all-important auxiliaries... he used these same emblems for the other Teutonic formations incorporated into the cadre of his new army and recruited chiefly from areas beyond the frontiers of the Empire."

The 'horned helmets' that Alföldi and others have seen on the Arch actually look like this:

   

Are they really horns? It may be significant that no source describes Roman soldiers of any date wearing horned helmets. Feathered crests, on the other hand, were common in earlier eras. Might these, more probably, be feathers instead?

The shield that Alföldi identifies as belonging to the Cornuti appears on the side of one of the column pedestals:

   

It does look like there might be goat heads there - or maybe dragons... But also a winged Victory?...

Trouble is, these pedestal bases show Roman troops with barbarian captives, not the campaign of 312. The soldier with the shield in question is wearing a normal 'attic' helmet, without 'horns'. In fact, it's quite possible that the reliefs on the four column pedestals are not Constantinian at all, but taken from a Tetrarchic monument honouring the victories of the four emperors, similar to the quadruple victory scenes on the Arch of Galerius.

So if the troops on the main frieze are wearing feathers on their helmets, not horns, and the shield design on the pedestal base is not connected to Constantine's 312 campaign, is there any reason to assume that the Cornuti played a part in this campaign, or even that they existed at that time?

I would say not. The 'horned' shield design, with or without animal heads, is used by many units besides the Cornuti in the ND. It's similar to late Roman belt buckle carvings, which may or may not have a 'Germanic' origin. The design could just as easily have been a Roman one, adopted by Germanic peoples, as vice versa. It certainly appears to have been used by Roman troops in the late 3rd or early 4th century, but we don't know who these troops might have been.

The earliest reference to the Cornuti therefore remains Ammianus Marcellinus (16.12.43), who mentions their presence at the battle of Argentorate in AD357. Anything before that is merely guesswork...

:-|

[sonic]

My MA dissertation was around the theme of the 'nationality' of the Late Roman auxilia. So many of the assumptions that were made have proved to be simplistic, to say the least. Although some have been dismissed, others - such as the Cornuti being on the Arch and being German - still hang on.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I have been a longstanding advocate of the Arch of Constantine depicting soldiers with feathers, not horns. We had this discussion on Total War center before.

Furthermore, the shield depicted does not bear any resemblance to the later emblem of the Cornuti/Cornuti Seniores/Cornuti Iuniores as shown in the Notitia Dignitatum. In fact, it seems to be a depiction of two waves at the bottom of the shield. Could it represent Moses' parting of the sea?

[Nathan Ross]

In fact, it seems to be a depiction of two waves at the bottom of the shield. Could it represent Moses' parting of the sea?

I think it's certainly some sort of beast - although it looks more like something from Dr Seuss than the Notitia Dignitatum!

   

There's a Christian version of what could be same shield, with the Victory figure apparently replaced by a Staurogram, on a steelyard weight now at the Smithsonian:

   

Alföldi mentions this in his paper, claiming (quite believably I think) that it is a later copy, and that the figurine originally represented Constantine (wearing the 'Jupiter' robe, which later emperors would not have worn).

But all this demonstrates is that the type of shield design shown on the Arch pedestal was later altered to reflect Christian iconography. Still no link to the Cornuti.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

These are the 3 shield designs in the Notitia Dignitatum:

[caiusbeerquitius]

Nathan, please pm me your postal address. I recently wrote an article about this, of which I have Special prints left.

[Nathan Ross]

These are the 3 shield designs in the Notitia Dignitatum

Yes, clearly the artist was quite capable of drawing animal heads if he wanted - the Celtae, Regii and others have them, the Cornuti do not...

Christian - thanks. PM sent!

[M. Demetrius]

As a member of the US-based Cornuti Seniores, we kind of take pride in being the "Horny Old Men", but that's another discussion. We do not wear horns on our helmets. I might put twin feather tubes on front, though, to symbolically represent two goat horns. A good idea, maybe.

(That will be far down the list, though. At present, I'm more worried about getting correct shoes.)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'd imagine they might have worn feathers on the side, like Republican soldiers were often depicted. thinking of that could it possibly have been just an artistic classicization?

[AMELIANVS]

Interresting theory with that feathers Evan.On the other hand I must ask-if I was a Roman, would I nicknamed feathers as horns?I guess if there was any connection with possible apllication on their helmets at all,it was rather something more tangible.

[Nathan Ross]

could it possibly have been just an artistic classicization?

I'd say the Constantinian frieze is a long way from classicized. Then again, some of the soldiers are wearing those natty little Attic helmets...

The prominence given to these helmet crests suggests they had some significance (there's a soldier on the left of the 'Milvian Bridge' panel also wearing 'feathers' on an Attic helmet, so clearly they were worn by different troop types).

One suggestion might be that Constantine's men wore feather crests on the front of their helmets to identify themselves in battle - when both sides looked the same, and may even have featured detachments of the same units, telling friend from foe would have been important!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Well the consensus with that is generally you'd know what Units were on your side, as shields would differentiate who to kill and who not to kill.

Also, Attic Helmets are generally believed to represent Intercisa-III and Intercisa-IV helmets after 280 AD (when the first Intercisa Type Helmet was discovered in... Richborough I think. Interesting enough it had an attachment for an attic-style browguard).

[Nathan Ross]

shields would differentiate who to kill and who not to kill.

Generally, yes. But with the multiplication of field armies in the tetrarchic period, troops from the same legions could have ended up fighting on opposing sides! (Maxentius took over the field army of Severus, which formerly belonged to western augustus Maximian; Constantine inherited the field army of western ceasar, later augustus Constantius...). Identification by shield design could have got a bit tricky.

Also, Attic Helmets are generally believed to represent Intercisa-III and Intercisa-IV helmets

Are they? It's possible, but I'm not convinced. 'Attic' helmets appear in Roman art long before the Intercisa type appears in reality...

the first Intercisa Type Helmet was discovered in... Richborough I think. Interesting enough it had an attachment for an attic-style browguard).

Do you mean this one? The 'browguard' looks a little strange there - I wonder if anyone has an original picture with more detail than this sketch? Is that actually a chi-rho plate on the crest? If so, a date somewhat after 280 is more likely...

[Urselius]

The 'horned helmet' on the Constantian bas relief is interesting in itself. It does not show evidence of cheek pieces and the sweeping brim and possible crest(?) remind me of the much later helmets illustrated in some Carolingian manuscripts.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Generally, yes. But with the multiplication of field armies in the tetrarchic period, troops from the same legions could have ended up fighting on opposing sides! (Maxentius took over the field army of Severus, which formerly belonged to western augustus Maximian; Constantine inherited the field army of western ceasar, later augustus Constantius...). Identification by shield design could have got a bit tricky.

Are they? It's possible, but I'm not convinced. 'Attic' helmets appear in Roman art long before the Intercisa type appears in reality...

Do you mean this one? The 'browguard' looks a little strange there - I wonder if anyone has an original picture with more detail than this sketch? Is that actually a chi-rho plate on the crest? If so, a date somewhat after 280 is more likely...

All Valid Points. I think the Richborough was discovered back when they didn't know how to accurately date these helmets, and has never been properly studied. Would be interesting to see an image of the actual helmet.