THe roman military mark?

[Tib. Gabinius]

Btw. try to get a look in R. Mc Mullen, Instriptions on arms and the supply of arms in the roman empire
Perhaps there could be some more words to it.
Its the only english literatur, ill check the german at times.

[Kate Gilliver]

Tobias, do you have the actual references for these passages of Maximilianus and Vegetius please?


btw, The Complete Roman Army has no footnotes / references because that's what the publisher demanded. Annoying, I know.

[D B Campbell]

I would guess that Goldsworthy's source is the Acta Sancti Maximiliani Martyris, as rendered by Brian Campbell (no relation!) in his Roman Army: Sourcebook, p. 12 no. 5.

In AD 295, Maximilian famously refused military service on the grounds of his Christianity. An ancient text records his recruiting interview with the African proconsul Dion.

Brian Campbell translates the crucial line as 'Dion said to his staff, "Give him the military seal".' (Brian Campbell explains this as "a piece of lead containing a seal and the recruit's name, which he wore around his neck".)

Unfortunately, I don't have the original Latin text to hand, and I cannot locate an on-line version, so I don't know what word Campbell has translated as "military seal".

David Woods has an on-line translation here.
He translates the crucial line as 'Dion said to the official, "Let him be marked".'

My guess is that there is no specific reference to a lead seal, only to a sign of some kind (which brings us back to Vegetius).

If someone can come up with the Latin text, we could check what the Acta Maximiliani actually says.

(Note: When I wrote this, I launched in before reading Tobias' post where he mentions Maximilian. So the credit goes to you, Tobias!)

[Kate Gilliver]

Ok, it's making more sense now as to where the idea's coming from even if, as Duncan says, it's still deeply problematic. Sadly my grown-up Lewis & Short and the possibility of finding a text of the Acta are at work.

Whilst not dismissing the possibility that soldiers might have worn lead tags like that, I feel uneasy because that would be so much like the lead tags that have been labelled as slave identification tags.

[D B Campbell]

I did briefly wonder why we might imagine Roman soldiers wearing "dog tags".
After all, aren't these a product of the gunpowder age, when soldiers might legitimately fear not only dying in combat but being mutilated in the process, so that their comrades would be unable to identify them?
The "marking" which we find in Vegetius has quite a different purpose (as others have noted in this thread and the earlier one).

On the subject of Maximilian, it seems that Roy Davies's 1969 paper on "Joining the Roman army" may be the ultimate source of the "lead disk" theory!

He translates the key passage as: "Dio said to the equerry, 'Give him the signaculum'. Maximilianus resisted and replied, 'I do not do so. I cannot serve as a soldier. I am a christian. I do not accept the signaculum of the age, and if you give me the signaculum, I will break it, because it has no validity. I cannot carry a piece of lead around my neck after the sign of my lord.'"

It is possible that Davies' enthusiasm may be getting the better of his scholarship here, and putting a particular spin on an ambiguous text.

Davies seems to say that, where he has translated "Give him the signaculum", the Latin text simply reads signetur ("Let him be marked"). Similarly, when he has Maximilian say "if you give me the signaculum, I will break it", it seems that the Latin text actually reads si signaveris rumpo illud ("if you mark (me), I shall break that"). (Break what?)
He doesn't analyse the bit about the "piece of lead" so, without the original Latin, we can't be sure what this was alluding to.

The mystery deepens ...

[Tarbicus]

Whilst not dismissing the possibility that soldiers might have worn lead tags like that, I feel uneasy because that would be so much like the lead tags that have been labelled as slave identification tags.

But isn't there are a recurring theme here, that legionaries were regarded as servile to the State, Emperor, and/or commander after surrendering their normal rights as citizens? In essence they were slaves, although I would no doubt end up with hobnail patterns on my face for suggesting that then. Either way, dog tag or tattoo, it still suggests a posession rather than a freedom.

Lt. Clarke's translation of the Vegetius reference says:

THE MILITARY MARK

The recruit, however, should not receive the military mark* as soon as enlisted. He must first be tried if fit for service; ....

After their examination, the recruits should then receive the military mark, and be taught the use of their arms by constant and daily exercise.

footnote: * This mark was imprinted on the hands of the soldiers, either with a hot iron, or in some other manner. It was indelible.

My copy of the translation by N. P. Milner says:

"The recruits should not be tattooed with the pin-pricks of the offiicial mark as soon as he has been selected....

So once the recruits have been tattooed the science of arms should be shown them in daily training."

He references C.P. Jones' paper, which is referred to in the other thread, as establishing that soldiers were tattooed, not branded, without noticing Vegetius.

[Dan Diffendale]

Some excerpts from the Acta Sancti Maximiliani Martyris...

Dion dixit ad Officium: Signetur.
Cumque resisteret Maximilianus, respondit: Non facio: Non possum militare.
...
Dion ad Maximilianum: Milita et accipe signaculum.
Respondit: Non accipio signaculum. Iam habeo signum Christi Dei mei.
...
Dion ad Officium dixit: Signetur.
Cumque reluctaret, respondit: Non accipio signaculum saeculi; et si signaveris, rumpo illud, quia nihil valet. Ego Christianus sum, non licet mihi plumbum collo portare, post signum salutare Domini mei Jesu Christi filii Dei vivi, quem tu ignoras, qui passus est pro salute nostra, quem Deus tradidit pro peccatis nostris. Huic omnes Chrisitani servimus; hunc sequimur vitae principem, salutis auctorem.
Dion dixit: Milita, at accipe signaculum ne miser pereas.

The key parts being si signaveris, rumpo illud "if you mark (me)/put the sign (on me), I will break it" and non licet mihi plumbum collo portare "I am not permitted to wear (the?) lead on/around my neck."

For what it's worth the Acta date themselves to Tusco et Anulino Consulibus IV. Id. Martii, Teveste, that is, 295 CE, March 12, at Theveste, modern Tebessa, in Algeria.


I'm certainly no expert on the hagiographical tradition, but this page (well footnoted) has serious doubts about the Acta Maximiliani. It refers to two distinct recruitment traditions, with reference to C. Zuckerman, "Two Reforms of the 370s: Recruiting Soldiers and Senators in the Divided Empire", Revue des Etudes Byzantines 56 (1998), 79-139, at 136-39.

Footnote 5 from the page:
"M.C.W. Still, Roman Lead Sealings (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London, 1995: British Library No. DX201717) catalogues 1,810 different sealings, multiple copies of which exist in many cases. He also discusses, pp. 112-13, the interpretation of the "seal" (signaculum) described by the passion of St. Maximilian only to conclude that, "If this practice really did take place, then we do not seem to have any recognized examples of these identity discs"."

[Kate Gilliver]

But isn't there are a recurring theme here, that legionaries were regarded as servile to the State, Emperor, and/or commander after surrendering their normal rights as citizens? In essence they were slaves, although I would no doubt end up with hobnail patterns on my face for suggesting that then. Either way, dog tag or tattoo, it still suggests a posession rather than a freedom.

Servile? Subordinate yes, but 'servile' unlikely - Rome is under normal circumstances extremely reluctant to allow anyone of servile status or origins to serve in her armed forces and this is very closely policed (note Pliny's concern about finding two men of service origin amongst recruits - Ep 10.29-30 - the slaves face execution). Military service throughout the Republic is an expectation of citizenship; although through the military oath soldiers submit themselves to the full authority of their general, legionaries are still a group of citizens. This idea continues into the imperial period to an extent.

Although soldiers are subject to more summary justice than civilian citizens, in the imperial period they have enhanced status as opposed to civilians (see Juvenal Sat. 16) as soldiers and enhanced legal status as veterans.

They are very far removed from slaves or servile status, hence my suggestion that they might not want to wear something which could look like something associated with servile status (note I say could, since there is much uncertainty about what these things may have looked like, if they were worn!).

As for the Vegetius - he's at work at the moment and I'm not, but we'd really need to check the latin to try to work out what Vegetius was trying to say.


ps. thanks for the Acta info!

[Dan Diffendale]

Vegetius: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vegetius.html

Book I: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vegetius1.html

from 1.8 (entitled Quando tirones signandi sint): Sed non statim punctis signorum scribendus est tiro dilectus...
Signatis itaque tironibus per cotidiana exercitia armorum est demonstranda doctrina.

[Tib. Gabinius]

Ok, it's making more sense now as to where the idea's coming from even if, as Duncan says, it's still deeply problematic. Sadly my grown-up Lewis & Short and the possibility of finding a text of the Acta are at work.

Deeply problematic isnt the right word. Its understandable to be sceptic, but its exactly the same situation like the subarmalia. Just some textpassages and not one found give us the hint, that they existed. But we know, greek and medieval used them also, the use of a hamata without dosnt make much sense and so the picture get filled.
There stay some doubts, thats for sure, but at all, we can say: they used it.
Same is here, there are some marks without the typical genitivum in the name, a source and an interpretation of a source.
For me, and i think i m seceptic most of time, that are enough evidence and hints to get it same level many other parts of the equipment stand.

Whilst not dismissing the possibility that soldiers might have worn lead tags like that, I feel uneasy because that would be so much like the lead tags that have been labelled as slave identification tags.

These lead marks can be found in nearly every part of roman live, so its more a question why they shouldnt do.
Espacially in roman military context, there were found a large number of the so called "Besitzermarken" or "owners marks", a nice publication showing some of them is "Geritzt und entziffert" of the Limesmuseum Aalen.

Nearly every part of the equipment could be marked with name, leader and / or sometimes the number also.

Similar to modern armies. Reason? Equipment looks similar, it can be lost (and hopfully brought back) or be stolen, lost in a battle at the field, all in all, to identify it.

After all, aren't these a product of the gunpowder age, when soldiers might legitimately fear not only dying in combat but being mutilated in the process, so that their comrades would be unable to identify them?

The same reason in roman army. If you take a look at some of the skelletons found in battle context, you often will see that the heads wear destoyed, lost a part of the face and so on.
And sometimes the heads were taken as trophies.
And not to forget, after (sometimes while) a battle, people start looting, so also jewelry and other, markable equipment would be stolen, so identification could be a problem also, espacially if we take a look to the mass of ballistic weapons used in ancient battles.
So, this isnt a fact to make mark using unlogical. In all times, in every battle, it could become hard to identify all bodies.

Servile? Subordinate yes, but 'servile' unlikely

You're right, but its also more than just been subordinated. You lost many rights of a "normal" civilian, like the right to marriage (at least in main part of roman legions history). And you could be killed, not only in battle, also for mistakes and all, what the army would call a crime.
And the thinking of the men is an owners thinking as well, they identify themselves with their units and leaders, at nearly all owners marks and a mass of gravestones, the leader of the unit they served in is called by name in genitivum.
So, they didnt saw themselves as slaves, thats for sure, they were proud civilians (in legions) or will get the civilians rights (as auxilian), but they were intigrated in something more, that made less of them.


To the Vegetius passage, i know at least to Professors and some Philologues (right word in english?) who tried to come to a conclussion at this passage, and they cant say it clear right now.
I dont think, thats why i mentioned all the time "one interpretation", that we will clear it out.

[Tarbicus]

Okay, slaves was the wrong word and Tobias says it far better than I. Sorry :?

"Indentured" is probably a better term, but indenture in practical terms is only one step above slave. Isn't it around the time of Vegetius that we see the beginnings of serfdom, leading to those who held sway over them at times refusing to release them for military service? If so, then clearly attitudes were changing towards the term 'citizen'.

[Kate Gilliver]

Some interesting points here, not that I necessarily agree with all of them ( :wink: ), and of course things do change over the course of the imperial period.

But, to get back to the essence of the thread, there is often a danger of taking the 'modern armies do this so why didn't ancient?' approach, and the evidence from the Roman world is in my opinion completely inconclusive. So, why don't we approach this from another angle? It isn't going to be any more conclusive, but may be interesting!

During some periods, Athens annually commemorated the war dead, both with ceremony and the setting up of casualty lists. How did they identify casualties? Individually identifying every body? What happens if there's been a serious defeat and bodies are scattered over a huge area? Assuming that everyone who doesn't come back is a casualty?

I guess I'm hoping that the Greek experts will drop by and contribute as I happily confess to knowing not very much about Greek warfare.

[Tib. Gabinius]

Thukydides reports us in his first and second book, that it was usual to get the fallen men at the same day (all!) from the battlefield.
Same says Xenophpon in the hell. books II, IV and VI.
Normally the latest day seems to be the day after the battle.
Indeed, Pausanias the spartian leader, was brought in front of a court cause he didnt fought after a lost battle, to get the dead. (Xen. hell. III)

It was usual to make after the battle a peace of the weapons, a cease fire, to get the dead, and even the winner, who had to withdraw before fresh reinforcments of the enemie could have to please for a cease fire. So did the Athens cause they forgot 2 dead on the field.

Identification wasnt necessary. The dead were burned right there and brought home. Euripides reports to us, that the ash ofthe dead was deponited in 10 cases, 1 for every phyla, and one empty for the missed (so not all were found every time, espc. in sea battles ).
At least this was usual in Athen, other tried to get the complete bodies home to burn them there, but mostly they were burried in honored mass graves.