Wearing Phalerae

[Tib. Gabinius]

Also i think its the wrong place to discuss it will say some words about that.

When you take your attention to the pteryges and their decoration or the helmet crest, or even the decoration of the helmets you will see, that nothing of these things compares with massiv golden or silver phalerae, and even the pugio sheet, for a short time one of the shinest parts of the equipment isnt that exponised (i hope thats the right translation for exponiert).

I never said that the roman legionair werent pride guys, with a sense for decor and a bit vainly.
But theres a difference between vainly or become a target first class.

Its not only the thinking of a man out if 21st century, its the think of every time, like Homer also showed up, like the reports of ancient wars and the looted armors of chieftains and so one focus, and also like the medievals show.

So, i can wear my Weissenau with the brass rivets and the brows, cause everyone on the field took part on this kind of decor, but i would not wear a golden breastplate and a silver, jewel sticked helmet and stand in the first line, between men whose brightest equipment is a belt or, just a short time, their sheets...

[Kate Gilliver]

Well the paper's been submitted with a sober title - should have taken Tarbicus' suggestion and called it Roman Military Bling!!

[Tarbicus]

and called it Roman Military Bling!!

Hmm ... now that's what I call a title 8)

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

I think they would have worn them in battle, but more around town to impress the ladies, that is what soldiers do (trust me).

on a more sober note, I do not believe it right to wear personal valor decorations you did not earn, but your mileage may vary, and if you have earned something that may be called the 'modern equivalent' to the roman decoration, then by all means, wear the roman decoration. not knocking unit decorations worn by centurions, just individual valor decorations. just my .02 (or less)

[Tarbicus]

There actually is an argument that wearing your decorations in battle could discourage the enemy from attacking you, as it would be obvious you were more experienced than the other soldiers, at least a bit of a veteran, and therefore a tougher opponent.

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

this is true, but I think it would have been up to the individual, and only a choice few would have worn them i.e. men with alot of decorations. remember, the roman decorations were all for combat, so very few men would have had enough, and not many would have had any at all.

[John M McDermott]

I can't help but comment on this topic. It would seem the pride and ego of a soldier would govern his actions here. Are there any proud, egotistical soldiers? Any safe ones?

[Tib. Gabinius]

There actually is an argument that wearing your decorations in battle could discourage the enemy from attacking you, as it would be obvious you were more experienced than the other soldiers, at least a bit of a veteran, and therefore a tougher opponent.

In that case, you mean the enemie see what you were there and what this "coins" at your breast and the torques and amrillae means.
Ok in case of torques, celts and germans can imagine, what these things mean, but otherwise the just see gold, silver and tin.
And the conclusion of well deocred and different decored to the neighbours means perhaps that this is an important man, a leader or something like this, and these guys were already targets, which the dead centurions and the necessary of antesignani impressiv demonstrat.

[Tarbicus]

which the dead centurions and the necessary of antesignani impressiv demonstrat.

Well, I think that has more to do with the fact that a centurion's role was quite simply more dangerous, and has nothing to do with the shiny bits. Casualty rates for centurions tended to rise steeply during a retreat, as they seemingly defended their men's retreat.

As for the extra guarding of the signa, they were the "family jewels" so to speak, and any officer who did not guard them properly would likely have been guilty of gross negligence. Let's face it, when you're carrying the most important and attractive items for a unit it's highly unlikely you're going to try to become a wallflower, as there was just no point whatsoever. They may as well as just stick a sign on the thing "Here are the goodies boys!!", so 'dressing down' would be completely pointless.

Soldiers love to look good, and wearing their decorations, I believe, is a great way to intimidate the enemy, and their comrades in a way, with clear signs and symbols showing they are tough hombres. They are also symbols of pride, stature and prowess, which would have more of a positive psychological effect on the individual, and even the unit, than any 'hiding' of them could ever do. They were there to get stuck in, so what would be the point in hiding how good they may have been?

[Tib. Gabinius]

I think you would be right if you ll say its a combination.
Of course the rate of dead centuriones raised while retreat and they were one of the small part standing the ground, . But, as well as Caesar us described, and not just him, often enough a big part of centuriones died in a hard battle or a long fight.

And by the way, the one moment you mentioned that the guys would be watching for medals to get a honorable enemy and than push the dead centuriones to fleeing comrades. I think thats a contradiction.



And your imagine of the antesignani seems to be of a honor guard, more than an effective protection. I dont have any source by the hand to get this contra, but i dont believe that a sign, that wouldnt just be "to look for and to feel good" just been guarded for the eyes. There are to many possibilities to get them in the fight itself and theres a to hard watch for loosing a signum or aquila.

Yes, i agree that the soldiers tried to look good. Watch the cingula or pugiones sheets, watch the other little elements which just look good and out of a long working process, e.g. the Mars figur on the gladius sheet in NL.

But while tile the endings of the pteryges were shown on different columns and other presentations you never see their phaleraes... not in battle and at work.

[Tarbicus]

I think you would be right if you ll say its a combination.
Of course the rate of dead centuriones raised while retreat and they were one of the small part standing the ground, . But, as well as Caesar us described, and not just him, often enough a big part of centuriones died in a hard battle or a long fight.

Absolutely they died in pitched battle, I never said otherwise. Just being on the front rank every time they fight pushes the odds against them sky high.

And by the way, the one moment you mentioned that the guys would be watching for medals to get a honorable enemy and than push the dead centuriones to fleeing comrades. I think thats a contradiction.

Defending the retreat is just an example, but maybe how I put it makes it look like the primary reason. I don't see where I state the guys would be watching for medals.

And your imagine of the antesignani seems to be of a honor guard, more than an effective protection. I dont have any source by the hand to get this contra, but i dont believe that a sign, that wouldnt just be "to look for and to feel good" just been guarded for the eyes. There are to many possibilities to get them in the fight itself and theres a to hard watch for loosing a signum or aquila.

I don't think I said they were only there to be a 'look good' honour guard? I'm with the crowd who believe the use of the face mask was as added extra protection for the face, as a signifer was unable to defend himself, and therefore the signum, as effectively as his comrades. Symbols of rank and authority, and symbols themselves, were of great importance to a Roman soldier. I do not feel they would be abandoned for a battle for these very simple reasons:

Sources; There is a written account of a dead centurion having his decorations looted during battle (I still can't find the reference but it's out there, and it's in one of the civil war books I'm sure.) Therefore he must have been wearing them in battle.

Character; I feel the argument that the men were cautious in battle is flawed. The image of quiet ranks all lined up in ultra-disciplined ranks is not one I go for (the one exception I know of being at Cremona between two veteran units, but I can think of many reasons for that to be an exception). The men were probably (in my eyes) boisterous and aggressive, to the point they could even threaten to kill their cornicens for not giving the order to attack. Even Caesar couldn't always control them, aristicratic tribunes fought Gallic chieftains one to one, centurions slew tribunes for dithering, and also jumped the defences and took on entire armies for the glory of it, auxiliaries stripped naked and ran at armies drinking their blood, etc.

Fate and Posterity; When you're dead you're dead. What better than to go down in a memorable blaze of glory, bristling with shiny awards that would be remembered by all comrades for them to tell of.

Face; Image was everything to a Roman. Tinning and silvering, bright colours, an image of oppulence and success. The more successful they looked the better. The better the army looked, the better Rome looked.

Confidence and Morale; Psychologically, the wearing of decorations is a confidence booster. Stood there waiting for the battle to begin a man could always be reminded of how he won them in the first place, and could look around at his unit and be reminded, even if only subtly, of how brave they are. Their standard had exactly the same awards attached to it.

Intimidation; The decorations are a symbol of prowess and ability, and therefore an excellent way of unsettling an enemy. The slightest advantage should be used whenever possible.

Superstition; They were deeply superstitious, and attached such meaning to objects. Even soldiers today have lucky tokens and habits.

Yes, i agree that the soldiers tried to look good. Watch the cingula or pugiones sheets, watch the other little elements which just look good and out of a long working process, e.g. the Mars figur on the gladius sheet in NL.

But while tile the endings of the pteryges were shown on different columns and other presentations you never see their phaleraes... not in battle and at work.

Then our segmentatae and helmets are wrong. Using the columns and similar as evidence is not the best way I feel, but there are other extensive threads on that subject.

I feel there is a lot of transplanting of modern attitudes and characteristics onto these guys that is probably misplaced. Modern armies are based around stealth and camouflage, but you could hear Roman soldiers coming from a mile away, quite literally. True, not all of the men would carry these symbols for lack of opportunity, and I'm not saying a cohort looked like a 'bling bling' convention, but if they had it I believe they would flaunt it out of pride and for status. Status itself was not necessarily associated to formal rank, but was a term used to define character and informal social standing, thus something to be very proud of. At least a man of lowly background and title could be seen as something 'more' than his peers, and what better way for a soldier to signify this than to wear his decorations, especially where it counted most, on the battlefield?

[Kate Gilliver]

You only have to look at some of the Republican / early imperial sources such as Livy & Caesar - which are a bit better than imperial ones for general attitudes to war & fighting - to see the importance of honour and virtus to Romans of all status. The speech of Spurius Ligustinus (Livy 42.34) is a good example of this; there's some useful discussion in Ted Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts which I think the newly established RAT book group is supposed to be reading (sorry I can't join in, but I'm reviewing it elsewhere).
btw, Jim, if you can find the ref to this dead centurion being looted I'd really appreciate it, cos I don't know the example.

(I think this discussion's wandered off the 're-enactment and reconstruction' section of the forum, but never mind!)

Kate

[Tarbicus]

Here you go, found it at last, and it wasn't Caesar's civil war, it was at Munda as described in the Spanish war (45 BC) :
"When it was observed that our men were giving more ground than was usual, two centurions from Legio V crossed the river [Salsum] and restored the battle line. As they drove the superior numbers back displaying exceptional courage ... one of them succumbed to a heavy volley of missiles discharged from the higher ground. His fellow centurion now began an unequal battle, and when he found himself completely surrounded he retreated but lost his footing. As the brave centurion fell many of the enemy rushed forward to strip him of his decorations ('Caesar', Spanish War, 23)."

That was from Roman Legionary 58 BC - AD 69, by Ross Cowan. It may well be that a different translation could lead to a different conclusion, in which case I'll eat my hat.

From the same book is this from Tacitus, Histories, 2.89, describing the triumphal march of the victorious Vitellians into Rome:
"Before the eagles marched the camp prefects, tribunes and chief centurions dressed in white. The other centurions, with polished arms and decorations gleaming, marched with the centuries. The ordinary soldier's phalerae and torques were likewise bright and shining."

In Head-Hunters and Drinkers of Blood (article for Milistary Illustrated, April 2005) he also talks of Ammianus Marcellinus' description of how, while under siege in Amada in the 4th C AD, the tribunes were unable to stop the centurions and men from repeatedly sortying out through the gates to take the fight to the Persians, which the tribunes had to agree to after they were threatened with being killed by the men.

I just can't see a picture of a legionary, et al, being timid and hoping not to be noticed in battle. Quite the opposite is the image I get.

And here's a link to a very informative review of Soldiers and Ghosts. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2006.02.14

[Tib. Gabinius]

And by the way, the one moment you mentioned that the guys would be watching for medals to get a honorable enemy and than push the dead centuriones to fleeing comrades. I think thats a contradiction.

Defending the retreat is just an example, but maybe how I put it makes it look like the primary reason. I don't see where I state the guys would be watching for medals.

You worte:

I believe, is a great way to intimidate the enemy, and their comrades in a way, with clear signs and symbols showing they are tough hombres. They are also symbols of pride, stature and prowess, which would have more of a positive psychological effect on the individual

That implicate, that the enemies look for the awards, not for the material, and even if i follow your arguments in the following of this last post of you, there wouldnt bee the time for, cause the battle was so engaging (hope, as usual right word and understandable, i hope you can excuse my bad englisch).

I don't think I said they were only there to be a 'look good' honour guard? I'm with the crowd who believe the use of the face mask was as added extra protection for the face, as a signifer was unable to defend himself, and therefore the signum, as effectively as his comrades. Symbols of rank and authority, and symbols themselves, were of great importance to a Roman soldier.

I. There isnt any evidence every signifer wear a mask helmet.
II. They formally known "cavalery sport helmets had such masks and were used in battle as far as we know and can imagine by their thickness.
So why should it possible to fight from horse with a mask but not by foot?
Yeah, i know and agree that it is difficult and i would be able to do, but this argument dont look logical to me.
III: We know that simybols where important, but is that a reason that a centurion would use a vitis in battle, just cause its a symbol for him? No, everyone who has to know dos know he had one. Same is with medals.

Sources; There is a written account of a dead centurion having his decorations looted during battle (I still can't find the reference but it's out there, and it's in one of the civil war books I'm sure.) Therefore he must have been wearing them in battle.

I know that source as well, but i just mention the sources i can name
But at all, as far as i remember, its not said what exactly they loot. It also could be ment his rings, cingulum and donativically sword, just as example.

Character; I feel the argument that the men were cautious in battle is flawed. The image of quiet ranks all lined up in ultra-disciplined ranks is not one I go for (the one exception I know of being at Cremona between two veteran units, but I can think of many reasons for that to be an exception). The men were probably (in my eyes) boisterous and aggressive, to the point they could even threaten to kill their cornicens for not giving the order to attack. Even Caesar couldn't always control them, aristicratic tribunes fought Gallic chieftains one to one, centurions slew tribunes for dithering, and also jumped the defences and took on entire armies for the glory of it, auxiliaries stripped naked and ran at armies drinking their blood, etc.

To continue, there are reports about killed "contra-emperors" cause they didnt let their troops looting Mainz, but these are also Topoi. It happened, but its not the typical and best example of the behavour roman armies shown, others parts of same sources mentioned how disciplined the troops were.
In triumph marches the soldiers sang (uh...right grammatical form?) dirty songs about their leaders and many guys get money about making slaves or collected heads while this was forbidden before...
Even the well disciplined british and preussian armies show sometimes that kind of behaviour and its mentioned in the sources, but not to show best.
As well republican armies has a full mass of such stories.
But, Kate will know it, its a difference between the rules and the stories in topoi.

Fate and Posterity; When you're dead you're dead. What better than to go down in a memorable blaze of glory, bristling with shiny awards that would be remembered by all comrades for them to tell of.

If the thinking would be so fatallity i wonder why armies of romans every tried to flee the field or survive a loose...
In a hard fight without a chance of geeting out it would be more important for me to kill as many enemies as possible before i fall than to look good while be killed in first minute, if i follow this frenetic way

Face; Image was everything to a Roman. Tinning and silvering, bright colours, an image of oppulence and success. The more successful they looked the better. The better the army looked, the better Rome looked.

I agree, and this is projectable to the field as well thats right, but than you come to the point of individual and collective. Its not the indivdual which is the important think, and medals were an individual thing.

Confidence and Morale; Psychologically, the wearing of decorations is a confidence booster. Stood there waiting for the battle to begin a man could always be reminded of how he won them in the first place, and could look around at his unit and be reminded, even if only subtly, of how brave they are. Their standard had exactly the same awards attached to it.

A watch to the good sightable singum would do this already and much better than a try to remember that the new recruit next to you isnt awarded yet...

Intimidation; The decorations are a symbol of prowess and ability, and therefore an excellent way of unsettling an enemy. The slightest advantage should be used whenever possible.

Here again, you think really the guys on enemie side can see more than a "bling" out of distance at single men, and even if, that the know what this nice face in gold and silver men or that the ring at your arm is more than the usual jewel?
Perhaps in civil war i would let this argument be truth, but not at parthians or dacians.
Like i said, celts and germans would perhaps know what the torques on your shoulders mean...

Superstition; They were deeply superstitious, and attached such meaning to objects. Even soldiers today have lucky tokens and habits.

Erm yes, and also romans had identificable objects to bring luck.
Watch the pterygesendings, the amuletts, the rings and the symbols on the normal decoration of the equipment. Even the munition of the slingers were been written...

Then our segmentatae and helmets are wrong.

Thanks... :roll:

Using the columns and similar as evidence is not the best way I feel, but there are other extensive threads on that subject.

As i described you up i / we dont use only some "pictures on the wall". But you cant just use on singular source, you have to took written, foundings, reliefs, victory signs and even the enemies picutres if you have. And that we did... so plz, dont take such an attack Thank you.

I feel there is a lot of transplanting of modern attitudes and characteristics onto these guys that is probably misplaced. Modern armies are based around stealth and camouflage, but you could hear Roman soldiers coming from a mile away, quite literally

Its more your thinking that make this a problem.
I never ask for camouflage or trying to be invisible. But i ask for the sourced by sources "individual under the group" and this is here, and i ask personally for the sence behind the worthfull decorations on field.
Even if you survice, theres a hard risk to loose these decorations, and they arent cheap... especially if the enemies who wanna fight with an eye to money making are hunting for that stuff. And they did, like all the looting tales give a good evidence, such as the symbols of victory on roman side as well.

True, not all of the men would carry these symbols for lack of opportunity, and I'm not saying a cohort looked like a 'bling bling' convention, but if they had it I believe they would flaunt it out of pride and for status. Status itself was not necessarily associated to formal rank, but was a term used to define character and informal social standing, thus something to be very proud of. At least a man of lowly background and title could be seen as something 'more' than his peers, and what better way for a soldier to signify this than to wear his decorations, especially where it counted most, on the battlefield?

I agree in that far: they would carry it with pride and show it to every possible and sencefull chance, but either working on a camp nor fight in a battle would fill these conditions.

[Tib. Gabinius]

Here you go, found it at last, and it wasn't Caesar's civil war, it was at Munda as described in the Spanish war (45 BC) :
"When it was observed that our men were giving more ground than was usual, two centurions from Legio V crossed the river [Salsum] and restored the battle line. As they drove the superior numbers back displaying exceptional courage ... one of them succumbed to a heavy volley of missiles discharged from the higher ground. His fellow centurion now began an unequal battle, and when he found himself completely surrounded he retreated but lost his footing. As the brave centurion fell many of the enemy rushed forward to strip him of his decorations ('Caesar', Spanish War, 23)."

That was from Roman Legionary 58 BC - AD 69, by Ross Cowan. It may well be that a different translation could lead to a different conclusion, in which case I'll eat my hat.

From the same book is this from Tacitus, Histories, 2.89, describing the triumphal march of the victorious Vitellians into Rome:
"Before the eagles marched the camp prefects, tribunes and chief centurions dressed in white. The other centurions, with polished arms and decorations gleaming, marched with the centuries. The ordinary soldier's phalerae and torques were likewise bright and shining."

Thanks for the sources

I just can't see a picture of a legionary, et al, being timid and hoping not to be noticed in battle. Quite the opposite is the image I get.

And here's a link to a very informative review of Soldiers and Ghosts. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2006.02.14

[/quote]
So far i seemed to express myself wrong or been not understandable.

I didnt said that the romans were full of fear or avoid a fight.
But its a differnce between brave fighting, especially in situations dont let avoid it, and beeing on the way to just show themselves as targets and individuals.

Like said before, in later times, roman late armies, theres another way to do that with the jewel imitiations e.g. on the helmet. But these guys were single fighters as well. No need like in former times to act like a group, think like a group and feel like a group.