display in roman warfare the appearance of armies and individuals on the battlefield war in history...

http://wih.sagepub.com

War in History

DOI: 10.1177/0968344507071038 2007; 14; 1 War In History

Kate Gilliver the Battlefield

Display in Roman Warfare: The Appearance of Armies and Individuals on

http://wih.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/1 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:War in History Additional services and information for

http://wih.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://wih.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

by guest on January 15, 2009 http://wih.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://wih.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://wih.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav


War in History 2007 14 (1) 1–21 10.1177/0968344507071038 © 2007 SAGE Publications

Display in Roman Warfare:The Appearance of Armies andIndividuals on the Battlefield1

Kate Gilliver

The paper discusses the appearance of Roman armies in battle and the con-tribution of arms and equipment to intimidating displays in the spectacle ofpitched battle. After arguing for similarity of equipment in the Roman armybut not uniformity, the paper considers the personalization of equipment bysoldiers as a means of self-advertisement and individual visibility in battle toensure reward for courageous actions. This behaviour is linked to theRoman army’s origins in the warrior society of early Rome. The paper con-cludes with a discussion of the significance of wearing military decorationsin battle, contra Maxfield’s argument (The Military Decorations of the RomanImperial Army, 1981) that soldiers did not wear decorations in battle.

The study of Roman armies’ experiences in combat has been under-taken seriously only during the last decade or so, brought about

largely through the impetus of Keegan’s seminal The Face of Battle andthe application of his approach by Hanson to the ancient Greekworld.2 It was not until the mid-1990s that Roman warfare was sub-jected to the same methodological approach which has since beenemployed in the study of individual campaigns and battles, allowinghistorians a more holistic, and more visceral, understanding of Romanbattle than had been available through previous work. The latter hadtended to concentrate almost exclusively on the deployment and tac-tical manoeuvring of armies on the battlefield, and the tactics andgrand strategies of individual generals.3 This change in approach has

1 This paper has been presented to research seminars at Cardiff University and theUniversity of Manchester; I am grateful to colleagues for their responses to the paperand suggestions for improvement, in particular to Louis Rawlings for his insights, andfor his advice on Gallic military display.

2 J. Keegan, The Face of Battle (London, 1976); V.D. Hanson, The Western Way of War(London, 1989).

3 D. Lee, ‘Morale and the Roman Experience of Battle’, in A. Lloyd, ed., Battle inAntiquity (Swansea, 1996), pp. 199–218; A.K. Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War(Oxford, 1997), The Punic Wars (London, 2001), Cannae (London, 2001); G. Daly,Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War (London, 2002).

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 1



benefited considerably from the study of Roman military equipmentwhich has done much to elucidate not only the nature of Roman bat-tle and the effectiveness of Roman soldiers in battle, but also the socialsignificance of various pieces of equipment and their effect on morale,though largely outside combat situations.4 From sculptural evidencewe know much about how Roman soldiers were dressed for combat orpeacetime activities, or at least how they or contemporary Roman soci-ety expected them to appear in an idealized fashion. However, littlework has been undertaken on the physical appearance – and physicaldisplay – of Roman armies and soldiers in battle. Such a study revealsmuch about the nature of Roman society and soldiers, as well as Romanunderstanding of battle, leadership, and morale.

The Roman state was very aware of the importance of military exhib-ition, the most famous and lavish example of which was the triumphalprocession of a successful imperator through the streets of Rome, accom-panied by spoils of war, enemy prisoners, and the bawdy chants of thegeneral’s soldiers.5 Other activities associated with triumphs includednot only tableaux illustrating the defeat of the enemy, but even the re-enactment of engagements from the campaign (Suetonius, Claudius 21).Aside from displays associated with triumphs, large-scale public enter-tainments in the imperial period might include re-enactments of navalbattles (Suetonius, Augustus 43; Nero 12; Titus 7), but these involvedgladiators rather than soldiers. Soldiers went on public display in theRoman equivalent of the military tattoo at which the formation anddeployment of the testudo seem to have been a popular item (Livy 44.8;Dio 49.30), while drills on the numerous parade grounds associated withforts and fortresses probably also included an element of public display(Arrian, Periplus 3, 10); certainly the hippika gymnasia of the imperialperiod, though based on cavalry exercises and intended partly to honeskills in formation riding and throwing weapons, included a significantelement of exhibitionism.6 The cavalrymen, dressed up in highly decora-tive equipment that was clearly not intended to withstand the rigours ofcombat but designed to attract the attention of spectators, undertooka complex series of high-speed manoeuvres on a parade ground in frontof a tribunal (Arrian, Tactica 34).7 But in addition to public display of

2 Kate Gilliver

War in History 2007 14 (1)

4 J.N.C. Coulston, ‘Armed and Belted Men: The Soldiery in Imperial Rome’, inJ. Coulston and H. Dodge, eds, Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City (Oxford, 2000),pp. 76–118; M.C. Bishop, ‘On Parade: Status, Display and Morale in the Roman Army’,in H. Vetters and M. Kandler, eds, Der römische Limes in Österreich, 36: Akten des 14.Internationalen Limeskongresses 1986 in Carnuntum (Vienna, 1990), pp. 21–30; J.-M. Carrié,‘The Soldier’, in A. Giardina, ed., The Romans (Chicago, 1993), pp. 100–37.

5 Suetonius, Caesar 49, 51; H.S. Versnel, Triumphus (Leiden, 1970), p. 95.6 M.C. Bishop notes the link between the displays and cavalry tactics, but that the

exercises involved ‘a strong element of display’ (Bishop, ‘On Parade’, p. 25). See alsoA. Hyland, Training the Roman Cavalry (Stroud, 1993).

7 Arrian’s description makes it clear that the gear used in the displays was not intendedfor use in battle, explaining that it was lighter and provided less protection than battleequipment (Tactica 34.3–5). Such equipment is best regarded as ‘sports equipment’rather than ‘parade equipment’.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 2



Rome’s military strength and skill, and the training value of such exer-cises, they probably also served to encourage recruitment, and cer-tainly played an important part in maintaining unit morale, especiallyin the regular periods of peace and comparative inactivity experiencedby armies in the principate. Many of these displays, however, werestaged largely for the benefit of a civilian public, and we hear far less inour sources about the exhibition of armies on the battlefield: the dis-play of entire armies and their posturing; how and why individualssought to display themselves and assert their individualism within theinstitution of the Roman army. These are the subjects of this paper.

I. ‘Homogenization’, Not ‘Uniformity’In spite of the image of uniformity propagated by public monuments inRome such as Trajan’s Column, military ‘uniforms’, with all members ofa unit assigned identical basic equipment and clothing, were not a fea-ture of armies in the Roman world. Roman legionaries, for example, didnot in reality appear as the identical figures kitted out with large rect-angular shields, short stabbing sword, and segmented armour that aresculpted on Trajan’s Column, as can be seen from the huge variety ofequipment depicted in private funerary sculpture. Even in the ancientworld, however, there were similarities, sometimes to quite strong degrees,in the way soldiers were armed and equipped, if only for the obviousreason that similarity of equipment was essential for the effective func-tioning of units in battle. In spite of this, there is likely to have beenconsiderable variation in the style and details of arms and armour.

In the early to middle republic, citizens serving in legions usuallyequipped themselves at their own expense, the expected arms andarmour varying in accordance with the citizen’s wealth and thereforehis position in the centurial system that formed the basis of Rome’svoting and military systems. However, the descriptions of this politicaland military hierarchy provided by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (4.16–18)and Livy (1.43) are idealistic and suggest a rigidity of organization thatalmost certainly never existed in reality. In particular, some of the differ-ences in the equipment supposedly worn by the different classes of heavyinfantrymen are so minor as to be virtually meaningless – the only dif-ference between infantry of the second and third classes in Dionysius’system is that the former wear greaves while the latter do not – and muchof these descriptions is likely to have been antiquarian invention.8 In hisdescription of the mid-republican legion, organized into three differ-ently equipped lines of maniples, Polybius claims that legionaries withthe highest property qualification of 10 000 drachmas armed them-selves with a mail coat, whereas those below that rating wore a bronze

Display in Roman Warfare 3


8 See T. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome (London, 1995), pp. 179–81, for a discussion ofsome of the problems in interpretation of these passages of Dionysius and Livy.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 3



breastplate or pectoral a span square (c.23 cm). However, given thenature of legionary combat, anyone who could afford it, or who managedto capture one, probably wore a mail shirt in preference to a bronze pec-toral. Equipment might be purchased, despoiled from the enemy dead,or handed down within families. Thus although the hastati, principes, andtriarii of the manipular legion were all equipped with helmet, shield,sword, and some kind of armour, there was almost certainly a vast amountof variation in the style and quality of equipment, and therefore in theappearance of a Roman legion. Nonetheless, just as the different nation-alities drawn into the Carthaginian armies of the Second Punic Warcould be recognized by their own particular types of equipment or thecolours of their dress (Polybius 3.114; Livy 30.33), a legion must have hada distinctively ‘Roman’ quality to its appearance.

Once the Roman state began equipping soldiers, either at the state’sexpense or through deducting the cost from soldiers’ pay, greater simi-larity of equipment is likely to have resulted. Indeed, in addition to otherconsiderations such as tactical change, state provision of equipment mayhave encouraged the abandonment of the four differently armed linesof the manipular legion and the establishment of the cohortal legionwith all legionaries similarly equipped as heavy infantry. However, evenwhen the state was providing equipment widely, continued variation inproduction should be expected. State-run arms factories seem to havebeen introduced in the late Roman Empire, and before then militaryequipment was probably produced by individual craftsmen and smallworkshops and, once units became permanent under Augustus, by spe-cialists within legions themselves.9 Production of equipment by small-scale manufacturers and private ownership of equipment would haveencouraged variation in design and decoration. Ownership inscriptionson pieces of equipment, most usually helmets, indicate that one itemcould have had several owners, being passed from one soldier to anotheror possibly redistributed by the army on a soldier’s retirement.10 Someitems of equipment may have been in continuous use for decades and,although these artefacts date largely to the imperial period, the use ofsecond-hand and older military equipment must have taken place inthe republican army too. Variation in the type and quality of equipmentused within a unit is likely to have been commonplace; there is not evenany evidence to suggest that all soldiers within the same unit wore thesame kind of armour, whether mail or scale, or the segmented armour

4 Kate Gilliver


9 S. James, ‘The Fabricae: State Arms Factories of the Later Roman Empire’, inJ. Coulston, ed., Proceedings of the Fourth Roman Military Equipment Conference, BAR S395(Oxford, 1988), pp. 257–331; M.C. Bishop, ‘The Military Fabrica and the Production ofArms in the Early Principate’, in Bishop, ed., The Production and Distribution of RomanMilitary Equipment, BAR S275 (Oxford, 1985).

10 R. MacMullen, ‘Inscriptions on Armor and the Supply of Arms in the Roman Empire’,American Journal of Archaeology LXIV (1960), pp. 23–40. MacMullen’s catalogue of punctiminscriptions on armour includes several helmets with the names of at least three orfour different owners on them (13 � CIL XIII.10027.219; 42 � AE 1933, 259; 47 � AE1952, 90).

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 4



that has been popularly regarded as the defining feature of the imperiallegion. Infantrymen may have worn a particular type of armour becauseit was issued to them, but personal preference may have played a roletoo. Nonetheless, as Robinson rightly observes, from a distance a Romanlegion or other unit might have appeared to be fairly uniform in its arms,equipment, and appearance.11

While it is certain that there was a great deal of variation within thedifferent types of equipment employed by Roman soldiers, the questionof colour and variations in colour is a deeply confused one that has pro-voked intense debate, especially over the colour of legionary tunics.Colour is clearly an important factor in military display, used as a meansof identification and association. The best example in a Roman contextis the general’s cloak, his paludamentum (see below), but this served todistinguish rather than to associate. Despite the obvious advantages ofdoing so, there is no evidence for Roman armies’ wearing tunics, cloaks,and other items of clothing of a specific colour: though economic con-siderations may have resulted in the prevalence of certain colours, par-ticularly undyed wool, there is no evidence for the existence of aprescribed ‘uniform’ colour of tunic.12 The potential of dress and mili-tary equipment for the expression of group identity and associationhas been noted by Burns in his study of military equipment andRomanization in the middle republic.13 In the fourth century BC, thetyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, provided his mercenaries, who had beendrawn from many different sources, with the armour of their own people:this was partly for military efficiency (they should fight better with theequipment they were used to), but also to intimidate the enemy(Diodorus 14.41.5). As Burns points out, the latter reason implies thatcertain equipment might be associated with a particular area or people.14

Helmet and tunic design were therefore possible ways of broadcastingsuch group identity. The former would, however, have been far morevisible than the latter when shields were being employed, and shieldsthemselves offered the most effective means of advertising identity. Thehoplites of a number of Greek city states employed distinctive designs ontheir shields, sometimes a letter representing the city’s name as theSpartans did (Xenophon, Hellenika 4.4.10; Eupolis F394 K-A). Romanshields clearly had distinctive designs on them, illustrated by the famousaction during the civil war of two Flavian soldiers at the second battleof Cremona in AD 69 who picked up the shields of an enemy legion to



11 R. Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome (London, 1975), p. 9.12 N. Fuentes suggests that soldiers wore off-white tunics in the early second century AD

(N. Fuentes, ‘The Roman Military Tunic’, in M. Dawson, ed., Roman Military Equipment:The Accoutrements of War, BAR S336, Oxford, 1987, pp. 41–76), while G. Sumner’s reviewof a wider collection of sources led him to suggest that red and white were fairly common,but he sensibly concludes that there was unlikely to have been a uniform colour(G. Sumner, Roman Military Clothing (1) 100 BC–AD 200, Oxford, 2002, p. 43).

13 M.T. Burns, ‘The Homogenisation of Military Equipment under the Roman Republic’,Digressus, supplement 1 (2003), pp. 60–85, http://www.digressus.org.

14 Op. cit., pp. 67–70.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 5



allow themselves to infiltrate enemy lines and disable a particularly effect-ive catapult (Tacitus, Hist. 3.23). The episode suggests that individuallegions had their own shield decoration or markings, though Vegetiusclaims that each cohort within the legion had its own shield decoration(Mil. 2.17). Whether legions or legionary cohorts had their own shielddesigns, it is probably something that developed during the late repub-lic when legions were starting to become more permanent, and wereregularly involved in civil war which would seem to necessitate someclear means of identifying one legion, or at least one general’s legions,from another. Previously there may have been a generic shield designsince many legions were raised only for a single campaigning season,and Roman citizens would have had no long-term association with a par-ticular legion. However, legions serving under a particular general forlonger periods of time in the republic may have adopted his name or asymbol as a shield device as an expression of loyalty and confidence.15

II. Battlefield Display: ArmiesThe concept of uniformity in clothing and equipment is anachronisticwhen studying the ancient world; instead similarity or homogeneity ofdress, arms, and equipment is a more helpful way of approaching thestudy of the appearance of armies in the Roman world. Similarity ofequipment was central to military efficiency, and also to successful mili-tary display and posturing. Although this paper concentrates on theequipment and clothing worn by armies, there were many other waysof ensuring an army deployed for battle presented an impressive andintimidating spectacle. There was a clear awareness in the ancientworld of the value of display not just in the peaceful contexts men-tioned above, but on the battlefield: the mass movements of armies,the flashing of metals, and colour and sound could combine to createan imposing and intimidating sight designed to give one’s own sideencouragement and to strike fear into the hearts and minds of theenemy. The importance Roman armies placed on drill, training, anddiscipline contributed further to the psychological impact of armies’

6 Kate Gilliver


15 The general’s name may have served as a means of identification on soldiers’ shields,but symbols were a more effective means of displaying loyalty; many of the legionsestablished on a permanent footing by Augustus had a legionary emblem that reflectedtheir origins under Caesar or Octavian, using a bull for the former, a Capricorn for thelatter: L. Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army (London, 1984), pp. 139–40; the shieldboss of Junius Dubitatus from Legion VIII Augusta includes that legion’s bull symbol,CIL VII 495. Livy’s suggestion that different shields helped Hasdrubal to realize Romanreinforcements had arrived before the battle at the Metaurus in 207 BC (27.47) may beretrojection into the Punic Wars of what was normal practice in Livy’s own day. Dio(67.10.1) reports that in the Dacian war soldiers were required to have their name andcentury inscribed on their shields to aid recognition of those performing brave orcowardly deeds, though other than identifying those who had thrown away their shieldsit is doubtful how practical such a means of recognition could have been, since suchownership inscriptions were small and impossible to read except at very close distance.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 6



appearances that could have an effect on the result of the battle wellbefore the fighting started.16

In his first-century AD manual on generalship, the Greek writerOnasander advised that:

The general should ensure that he deploys his battle line with theirequipment glittering, a simple matter requiring only an order tosharpen swords and to burnish helmets and breast-plates. For theadvancing ranks appear more terrible with their gleaming weapons,and the terrible sight strikes fear and confusion in the hearts of theenemy. (Onasander 28)

Ordering soldiers to clean their arms and armour before battle clearlyhad other advantages beyond producing an impressive display to intimi-date the enemy, most importantly the identification and repair of anydefects in equipment, but it also reminded soldiers of their responsi-bilities to their fellow soldiers and their unit, especially in the case ofshield devices.17 Plutarch seems to have been particularly aware of theimpact such visual displays could have: he notes the gilded armour andred cloaks of the Macedonians at Pydna in 168 BC, along with the gleam-ing metal shields of the Bronze Shields (Plutarch, Aem. 18). In a veryshort encounter before Chaeronea in 86 BC the Romans were unwillingto engage the Pontic army, and Plutarch claims that this was because theywere intimidated by the latter’s spectacular appearance: ‘As the rankssurged back and forth, the flashing of their armour which was magnifi-cently embellished with gold and silver, and the colours of theirMedian and Scythian cloaks mingling with gleaming bronze and iron,presented a radiant and formidable appearance’ (Plutarch, Sulla 12).

Other authors comment on the psychological impact armies createdthrough their colourful and varied appearances (Polybius 2.29, 3.114;Livy 9.40.1–6, 10.38.13, 22.46), referring not just to Greek or easternarmies which might reflect the literary topos of eastern wealth anddecadence. Armies from the western Mediterranean could be equallyintimidating through their appearance: the nakedness of some of theGallic warriors contributed to a terrifying sight at Telamon, accordingto Polybius (2.29), though their bold decision to fight naked con-tributed, because of the prickly nature of the ground cover, to theirdefeat. Livy places considerable emphasis on the appearance of theSamnite ‘legions’ during campaigns with Rome in the late fourth and



16 There have been many attempts to recreate Roman military deployments in film,television, and by ‘living history’ societies. In spite of historical inaccuracies, particularlythe almost total lack of authenticity in the military equipment used, Stanley Kubrick’sfilm Spartacus (1960) illustrates well the potential effects of drill, organization, anddisplay. The deployment of the Roman army is portrayed at some length, partly fromthe perspective of the servile army, and the scene shows the effect of the sun reflectingoff metal equipment, the flashing movement of shields being particularly impressive.

17 C. Gilliver, The Roman Art of War (Stroud, 1999), p. 101. The Christian symbolreportedly employed on their shields by Constantine’s soldiers at the Milvian bridgeprovides an excellent example of the potential psychological advantages available.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 7



early third centuries BC. The ‘linen legion’ was supplied with splendidarms and crested helmets to ensure its men stood out among other war-riors who were also very finely equipped (Livy 10.38.13), and Livy drawsa stark contrast between the Samnite warriors and Roman soldiers.18

The legionaries, Livy claims, ‘had been taught by their commanders thata soldier ought to be rough-looking, not inlaid with gold and silver buttrusting to iron [ie the sword] and courage’.19 He describes highly ornateSamnite military equipment as ‘spoils of war rather than arms, gleam-ing bright before an engagement, but unsightly among blood andwounds’ (Livy 9.40.5), and ‘more for empty display than efficiency inaction’ (Livy 10.39.11). Elsewhere he makes a strong contrast betweenthe plain utilitarian armour and equipment worn by Titus Manlius andthe painted and gilded armour worn by his Gallic opponent in singlecombat.20

This attitude that real (or Roman) soldiers ought to be plain-lookingand not adorned with valuable decorated equipment finds echoes insome of the exempla of Frontinus and the reported behaviour of othergenerals. Scipio Aemilianus broke equipment that was self-indulgentand of no use on campaign, as part of his programme of imposing dis-cipline on the demoralized army at Numantia (Frontinus, Strat. 4.1.1),and Africanus criticized a man for having an elaborately decoratedshield (Strat. 4.1.5), evidence also perhaps for a lack of uniformity inshield design during the Second Punic War. Such anecdotes belong toa tradition of Roman austerity compared with barbarian or easternluxury, the former being a Roman quality that was considered to be oneof the factors that contributed to Rome’s conquest of the Mediterraneanworld.21 Indeed, in spite of the impressive and sometimes dauntingappearance of eastern armies, the variety of different colours andequipment used by different units is highlighted by ancient authors as an indicator of an underlying weakness, a lack of the cohesion that came from common origins. While stressing the huge size of many late Hellenistic armies, historians also emphasize the varied origins of different contingents of units from allied and subject peoples. Lists of different troop types and strengths might appearimpressive in the narratives, but they are often accompanied by a state-ment about the problems of units lacking a common language and

8 Kate Gilliver


18 Livy’s description is plausible, according to A. Rouveret, ‘Tite-Live, Histoire RomaineIX.40: la description des armées samnites ou les pièges de la symétrie’, in A. Adam andA. Rouveret, eds, Guerre et sociétés en Italie (Paris, 1986), pp. 91–120. Florus is very criticalof the gold and silver Samnite equipment for its ostentation (1.6.7).

19 Livy 9.40.5: ‘doctique a ducibus errant horridum militem esse debere, non caelatumauro et argento sed ferro et animis fretum’.

20 Livy 7.10, though according to Aulus Gellius, citing Claudius Quadrigarius, the Gaulwas naked (Gellius 9.13).

21 E. Dench, From Barbarians to New Men (Oxford, 1995), pp. 99–102, and ‘Italy and Sicilyin the Hellenistic Age’, in A. Erskine, ed., A Companion to the Hellenistic World (Oxford,2003), pp. 294–310.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 8



culture.22 There is an implicit, and sometimes explicit, understandingthat Roman armies did not suffer similar difficulties in spite of the sig-nificant role of Italian allies (socii) and other allied troops. Livy makeshis opinion on this very clear in his account of Magnesia in 189 BC,contrasting the varied origins and appearances of Antiochus’ troopswith the Roman army, which was ‘almost uniform’ in both men andequipment (Livy 37.39), and in his description of the opposing armiesin Rome’s war with its Latin allies in 340 BC, in which he claims thatthere was no difference between the two armies except in courage(Livy 8.8). However, Livy may have been drawing on observations fromthe social war and the recent civil wars in writing of clashes betweenRome and her near neighbours, an episode which he actually equatesto civil war (Livy 8.6.15), and on the contemporary ideal of a unified Italy,tota Italia, resulting in the overemphasis of similarity of equipment,appearance, and language in the third and early second centuries BC.By the early first century BC differences between the equipment andappearance of legionaries and Italian socii are likely to have been farless obvious than in earlier periods.23 It seems entirely likely that atleast until the middle republic the different cohorts of socii could havebeen differentiated from each other and the legions by their dress andequipment; indeed, allied cohorts may even have seen this as an oppor-tunity to assert their own identity despite their subordinate status. It isunfortunate that there is too little evidence for allied military equip-ment and appearance to address this issue satisfactorily.

In addition to the lack of evidence for uniformity in the appearance ofRoman and allied troops, it is also perfectly clear from the literary sourcesthat Roman armies did not consist of the plain, rough-looking soldiersof Livy’s traditional republican ideal. There was no concept of ‘paradeequipment’ in the Roman period: soldiers wore the same equipment,whether on peacetime exercises, on military parades, or in battle.Caesar’s narrative of his army’s ambush by the Nervii in 57 BC stressesthe suddenness of the attack by stating that his soldiers did not havetime to put on their insignia, indicating that it was normal practice toattach some kind of decorative appendage to their equipment.24 Inspite of the literary theme discussed above, spectacular appearance wasimportant in Roman armies, and Onasander’s advice, aimed at generalsof the early imperial period, was both practical and relevant. Polybius



22 Zama, Livy 30.33 (‘uaria adhortatio erat in exercitu inter tot homines quibus nonlingua, non mos, non lex, non arma, non uestitus habitusque, non causa militandieadem’); Magnesia, Livy 37.40 (‘regia acies uaria magis multis gentibus, dissimilitudinearmorum auxiliorumque erat’). Appian makes a similar observation about the polyglotorigins of Pompey’s soon to be defeated army at Pharsalus (B.Civ. 2.75); the implicationis that the lack of cohesion (and discipline) is a major contribution to the defeat.

23 Burns, ‘Homogenisation’.24 Caesar, B.G. 2.21. Insignia has been translated as crests (Caesar, B.G. 7.45, as translated

by A. Wiseman and P. Wiseman, The Battle for Gaul, London, 1980; accepted by Bishop,‘On Parade’, note 4, p. 23), but crista is the usual word for a helmet crest; insignia moreusually means symbols of office, honours, or decorations, on which see below.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 9



notes that helmet crests provided an illusion of height, claiming thatthe helmet with its 18-inch crest of feathers, along with the rest ofhis equipment, made the legionary seem twice his real height, givinghim a striking aspect and appearing terrifying to the enemy (Polybius6.23.13). Velites (light-armed infantry) on the other hand sometimes cov-ered their plain helmets with wolfskin or the skin of another animal(Polybius 6.22.3), the purpose of which was to provide additional pro-tection and to serve as a distinguishing feature to aid recognition of indi-viduals in battle and ensure that brave actions were correctly rewarded.Wolfskin was an appropriate choice of decoration given the skirmishingand chasing role of the velites, and it is very likely that the wolf emblem,one of the five emblems used before the eagle became the primelegionary standard, was the standard of the velites and representedthem (Pliny, N.H. 10.16). However, aside from the small protection itoffered, the pelt was intended to distinguish individuals in the confusionof battle, and Polybius makes it clear that wolf was not the only animalthat might be used, presumably by velites striving to make their equip-ment more easily identifiable than that of their comrades. Modernreconstructions showing all the velites in a legion dressed in completewolfskins with the wolf’s head over the helmet are inaccurate, andthere is no evidence for the animal’s head being used by these troopsat all.25 From these examples it is clear that appearance was importantto soldiers in the republican army, both for the purpose of individualrecognition and to provide a psychological advantage over the enemy.Contrary to the implications in the literary sources, Roman armiescould be visually just as intimidating as Samnite, Greek, or Gallic ones.

In contrast to the generals Livy has extolling the plain roughness ofRoman soldiers in the Samnite wars, Sempronius Gracchus took advan-tage of his army’s impressive appearance before the walls of Certina inSpain in 180 BC. Gracchus had his siege engines lined up ready to attemptan assault if necessary and, although the defenders were consideringterms, they were clearly prepared to fight if they must (Livy 40.47). Inorder to encourage the surrender, Gracchus had all his infantry andcavalry equip themselves and undertake a series of manoeuvres underarms in full view of the city. Certina promptly surrendered.26 While wehave far less historical evidence on the appearance of imperial armies,partly because of the nature of the sources, which provide few accountsof large-scale campaigns and battles, there is a wealth of archaeologicalevidence indicating a brightly equipped army which most likely put on

10 Kate Gilliver


25 J. Warry, Warfare in the Classical World (London, 1980), p. 110; E. Lendon, Soldiers andGhosts (New York, 2005), p. 180.

26 The value of well-drilled and experienced troops is well illustrated here: cf. Alexander’ssimilar actions when his army was caught on awkward ground by an Illyrian force; heordered the phalanx through a series of complex manoeuvres in silence and at highspeed. By the time the phalanx raised its war cry the Illyrians were in full retreat,presumably terrified by the skill and professionalism of the Macedonian soldiers(Arrian, Anabasis 1.6.1).

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 10



a highly impressive display of flashing metals and colour when itdeployed for battle. The hippika gymnasia of Arrian give a good idea ofthe kinds of sweeping manoeuvres the cavalry might perform, not juston the parade ground but also in battle, for the wheeling manoeuvresand throwing of javelins while turning from the enemy were valuableskills for cavalry to practise.27 The emperor Aurelian is reported to haveadvised a subordinate to ensure his soldiers kept their arms polishedand equipment bright, and wore their military decorations in public,partly no doubt to present an intimidating sight not only to any enemy,but also to the civilian population, and also as an indication that mili-tary discipline was being maintained.28

Plutarch claims that, at Pharsalus, Caesar was worried about the psy-chological impact on his troops of Pompey’s cavalry because they were somagnificently equipped (Plutarch, Pomp. 69), though they clearly lookedbetter than they fought, particularly when Caesar’s infantry targetedtheir faces (Caesar, B.Civ. 3.93; Appian, B.Civ. 2.78). Caesar himself,according to Suetonius, was so concerned with the appearance of hissoldiers that he ‘had their weapons inlaid with gold and silver, both forshow, and so the soldiers would keep hold of them more firmly in battle,fearing the cost of losing them’ (Suetonius, Caes. 67). It is rather morelikely that Caesar’s soldiers decorated their own equipment from thewealth acquired on campaign, and although Suetonius presents it as anexample of Caesar’s indulgent attitude towards his soldiers, it was andalways had been the case that Roman soldiers personalized their equip-ment, as discussed below. Nonetheless, again we see the potential offlashy equipment to the visual display of an army, polished metal such asthe bronze used for most republican helmets being particularly effectivein this respect, as Onasander notes: ‘Soldiers should wave their swordsabove their heads towards the sun; the polished spear-heads, flashingswords and reflections of the sun from the army sends out a terriblelightning flash of war’ (Onasander 29).

Appearance was an aspect of the psychological games of warfare,and its importance was clearly recognized by soldiers and generals, his-torians, and the compilers of tactical manuals. It served to foster armyand unit cohesion, and played a key role in pitched battle, with eachside trying to intimidate the other before the fighting actually started;indeed on occasion it could help bring about a bloodless victory. Whilesimilarity of equipment and its decoration, along with drill and dis-cipline, could encourage unit and army cohesion and provide a psy-chological advantage in war, it is also necessary to consider how withinthe group identity of Roman military units it was possible for soldiersto tailor their own appearance so as to assert some individual identity



27 K. Dixon and P. Southern, The Roman Cavalry (London, 1992), pp. 144–45. The‘dragon’ standards with their flowing cloth tails adopted from Danubian tribes duringthe second century AD would have been an equally impressive contribution to Romanmilitary display, especially when employed by swift-moving cavalry (Arrian, Tactica 35).

28 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Aurelian 7.6–7.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 11



themselves. As indicated above, the ideal of uniformity propagated bypublic monuments in Rome such as Trajan’s Column, and encouragedby historians such as Livy, did not exist in reality, as can easily be seenthrough a consideration of the archaeological evidence of military equip-ment and the sculpted military tombstones from the frontier areas,which probably provide a more accurate representation of legionariesand auxiliaries than the Rome monuments.29

III. Battlefield Display: IndividualsGenerals were expected to display their individuality and ensure theirvisibility on the battlefield and did so in a number of ways, most signifi-cantly by wearing the paludamentum, the commander’s cloak whichensured he could be identified. It was usually a distinctive colour, red orpurple, or white, though colours do not seem to have been prescribed;Crassus wore a black cloak at Carrhae which was subsequently inter-preted as a bad omen (Valerius Maximus 1.6.11). It was very much thesymbol of generalship and command, and as such was a desirable itemto obtain as spoils (Suetonius, Julius 64; Valerius Maximus 5.1.11).Caesar’s paludamentum brought great resolve to his hard-pressed troopsin a critical situation at Alesia (B.G. 7.88), and such displays may havebrought dismay to the enemy, or alternatively encouraged them andmarked out the general as a target. Being seen – and recognized – by histroops, indeed military display both on a personal level and beyond, wasclearly something Pompey was well aware of, and during his career heemployed a variety of methods to ensure this, though not always with theintended results. He ensured that his whole army put on a brilliant dis-play to impress Sulla when he first met him as an ally during the civil war(Plutarch, Pomp. 8), and in Africa he got into the habit of fighting fromhorseback without a helmet so that his soldiers could see him. Plutarchclaims, probably untruthfully, that he started doing this when his ownside nearly killed him when he was slow with the password and they didnot recognize him (Pomp. 12). In reality, Pompey’s custom, perhaps inemulation of Alexander the Great, was no doubt to ensure that his menknew their general was fighting with them and would be able to rewardany brave actions, and perhaps as a gesture of bravado aimed at both hisown men and the enemy. Later, in Spain, he rode a horse equipped withgolden cheek-bosses and rich caparisons, again perhaps to ensure hewould be recognized and to encourage his army, but the plan backfiredand his obvious importance meant he became a target for the enemy.However, Plutarch claims that the enemy were more interested in cap-turing the richly equipped horse than its rider, so Pompey was able toescape (Pomp. 19). After Pharsalus, Pompey swiftly discarded the clothes

12 Kate Gilliver


29 Robinson, Armour, p. 7; M.C. Bishop and J.C.N. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment(London, 1993).

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 12



that he wore for the battle because they marked him out as the com-mander (Pomp. 72; Appian, B.Civ. 2.81), and his paludamentum wouldsurely have been the key garment to abandon to ensure his safe escape.

As with generals, the presence of officers of all ranks on the battlefieldwas expected to encourage their men to fight more bravely (Polybius6.22) through their very presence and their role in witnessing cour-ageous actions and ensuring they were rewarded. In addition, some offi-cers had important tactical roles and so, like standards, they needed tobe visible and their movements apparent to their men. Livy’s mentionof the military tribune Decius in 343 BC wearing a common soldier’scloak (a sagulum) and ordering his centurions to dress as common sol-diers to avoid being identified on an intelligence-gathering missionindicates that officers might wear distinctive clothing associated withrank. Tribunes are likely to have been distinguished by items such as amuscled cuirass and leather pteruges, but there is very little direct evi-dence for differences between the military dress of centurions and thatof ordinary soldiers in the republican period, when personal wealthprobably affected dress and equipment as much as rank.30 The easiestand most effective means of ensuring visibility and displaying rank orstatus was through the wearing of a distinctive helmet: Tiberius Gracchushad such a helmet that he used in battle which was finely decoratedand, more significantly here, was easily distinguishable from a distance(Plutarch, Tib. Gr. 17). We have already seen that helmet crests wereused to add the illusion of height to infantrymen, and sculptural andarchaeological evidence attests to a wide variety in the type of crestsattached to helmets, including large central plumes and plumes onthe sides of helmets.31 Helmet plumes had a number of possible rolesbeyond the psychological noted by Polybius. Robinson observes thepotential of crests to advertise group identity, suggesting that differentcohorts or even centuries might wear crests of different design orcolour.32 Crests might also be used to mark out rank, though the trans-verse crest on the centurion’s helmet is the only known specific example.It is Vegetius who provides this information, noting that it was to ensurethe centurion’s recognition by his men, and such crests are illustrated



30 See Robinson, Armour, pp. 147–52, on the muscled cuirass; sculptural evidence indicatesthat this type of cuirass was not exclusive to officers of senior status, though in therepublican period when soldiers were equipping themselves at their own expense suchan item of equipment would have been beyond the means of the vast majority ofRoman citizens.

31 Op. cit., pp. 140–43.32 Op. cit., p. 141. Drawing on Pliny’s comment about the legion’s name, M. Bishop argues

that soldiers of Legion V Alaudae wore helmet crests inspired by the feathered tufts ofa particular type of lark or alauda (‘Legion V Alaudae and the Crested Lark’, Journal ofRoman Military Equipment Studies I, 1990, pp. 161–64). However, Pliny states only that thelegion took its name from the crested lark, the alauda, and says nothing about helmetcrests directly (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 11.121). Although it is entirely possible that the legiondefined itself with a unique crest, the legion’s identification with the alauda may havecome from some other attribute of the bird, or an omen relating to it.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 13



in a small number of funerary reliefs.33 The role of the centurion wasto lead from the front and although centuries had standard-bearerswith standards, the crested helmet could also act as a focus for soldiers,ensure swift recognition of an officer, and ensure that their orders,and movements, would be followed. The high profile of centurions inmany literary accounts of battles indicates their visibility on the battle-field, through both their actions and their appearance (eg Caesar,B.G. 5.44, 6.38; Appian, B.Civ. 2.82). Officers needed to be visible totheir men to lead them effectively, and literary sources indicate thatsoldiers gained confidence and encouragement to fight more bravelyif they could see that their officers were with them or watching them(Polybius 6.22; Caesar, B.G. 7.88).

However, this was not the only reason that Romans of every rank andstatus made considerable efforts with their dress and equipment toensure they stood out on the battlefield. The Roman army was not amonolithic, uniform institution but one that evolved from the warriorbands of the regal period and the early republic. Aspects of the ‘warriormentality’ remained, along with the expectations and pressures of themilitarized society that early Rome evolved into. Sallust complains thatthe elite youth of his day were more interested in wine and women than‘fine armour and war-horses’ (Catiline 7), claiming the reason they hadonce been more interested in flashy armour than flashy women was that‘they competed eagerly among themselves to win honour, each manseeking to be the first to engage the enemy, to scale a rampart, and whileperforming such a deed to be seen’ (conspici). In spite of Sallust’s moral-izing tone about the debasement of society in the late republic, the liter-ary tradition of heroic actions in war by individuals and their desire tobe seen is reflected in other evidence. Competition for honour drovewar in the republic, and the best way for an elite Roman to attract atten-tion was to earn public recognition for virtus in war and the military dec-orations for valour which could be shown off in public in his home.34

Those who had won the corona civica for saving a fellow citizen’s life inbattle were among those recruited to fill the ranks of the senate afterCannae (Livy 23.23). It was therefore extremely valuable for an ambi-tious aristocrat to acquire a reputation for courage and so to be visibleon the battlefield to ensure such actions were witnessed. Nor was thisdesire to be seen being brave limited to the elite, as illustrated by theemphasis epitaphs and funerary sculpture placed on military decorationsawarded to soldiers of all ranks.35 Some inscriptions go further and dis-play enormous pride at the military achievements being commemorated,even a boastfulness that echoes the attitudes of heroes in the Homeric

14 Kate Gilliver


33 Vegetius, Mil. 2.13, 2.16; tombstones: T. Calidius Severus (Carnuntum, CIL III.11213)and Marcus Petronius Classicus (Illyricum, CIL III.4060).

34 T.P. Wiseman, ‘Conspicui postes tectaque digne deo: The Public Image of Aristocratic andImperial Houses in the Late Republic and Early Empire’, in C. Pietri, ed., L’Urbs: espaceurbain et histoire (Rome, 1987), pp. 393–413.

35 V.A. Maxfield, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (London, 1981), pp. 48–49.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 14



epics.36 At least some ordinary soldiers were also in fierce competitionwith each other for recognition for bravery and the opportunities forpromotion and social advancement that came from public recognitionof valour.37 Although in some instances soldiers who wished to claimrewards of valour might have to come forward – as was the case atCartagena (note 37), or with the soldier Scaevius, who personally pre-sented to Caesar two enemy breastplates he had captured in Britain andreceived promotion to centurion (Valerius Maximus 3.2.24; Plutarch,Caes. 16) – in the majority of cases it seems that officers were expected tonote brave conduct and ensure individuals were appropriately rewarded.Indeed, Plutarch points out that Caesar witnessed Scaevius’ actions first-hand, and the general’s presence may have provided strong encourage-ment to the legionary to perform the reported deeds. This potentialis likely to have provided motivation for some ordinary soldiers, like theelite, to ensure their kit was sufficiently different or eye-catching, asPolybius implies.

However, with the exception of Polybius’ comment about the choice ofhead protection by velites, there is very little commentary in the literarysources on distinctive equipment worn by those of lower status. Florusdoes report on the bizarre contraption worn by one centurion in theearly imperial wars fought in Moesia: this consisted of a fire-pan attachedto the man’s helmet which, when fanned by the movement of his body,sent out flames from his head. The historian is rather scathing of thecenturion, suggesting this was stupid and comparing him to the barbar-ian enemy, but he admits that the effect terrorized the enemy (Florus2.26.16). However, such details are rare, and far more information canbe obtained from archaeological evidence, most of which dates to theimperial period. Although significant numbers of plain, undecorateditems of equipment survive from antiquity, numerous examples of per-sonalized and individually distinctive pieces of military equipment havesurvived, indicating that for some, at least, there was a need or a desireto stand out. Indeed the huge variety in terms of style and decorationis further evidence against the concept of uniformity of equipment inthe Roman army. Although some of the most decoratively varied itemsof equipment, most notably sword-belts and their attachments, andhelmets, are over-represented in the archaeological record, it may well



36 The epitaph of Tiberius Claudius Maximus boasts of how he had captured the Dacianking Decebalus and taken his head back to deliver to the emperor Trajan in person (M. Speidel, ‘The Captor of Decebalus: A New Inscription from Philippi’, Journal of RomanStudies LX, 1970, pp. 142–53), while a Batavian auxiliary claimed that he was the bravestman in his unit, boasted of his feats at swimming, javelin throwing, and archery, andlaid down a challenge ‘to see if anyone can emulate my feats after me. By my ownexample, I am the first person to have done such deeds’ (ILS 2558).

37 At Cartagena a dispute arose over entitlement to the corona muralis (Livy 26.48), whileCaesar claims competition for honours encouraged his centurions to disobey orders,causing the defeat at Gergovia (B.G. 7.47–52). The speech of Spurius Ligustinusillustrates well the importance of a reputation for valour for a member of the lowerorders as well as the advancement in both military rank and social status that couldaccompany such a reputation (Livy 42.24).

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 15



have been the case that all equipment was subject to similar levels ofpersonalization.38 Self-display is not the only reason for the personal-ization of equipment: easy recognition of one’s own equipment andthe availability of easily portable wealth no doubt also encouraged sol-diers to decorate their gear with gilt and enamel. However, as alreadyindicated, helmets would have been the most visible part of a soldier inbattle, and so it is not at all surprising that the artefacts themselvesshow considerable variation in decoration and identifying features, aswas noted by the literary sources of the republican period. Of themore distinctive helmets in Robinson’s catalogue one is an iron hel-met from Heddernheim decorated with bronze fixtures displayingembossed wavy hair on the brow and cheek pieces and snakes on thebowl; the helmet is topped by a large bronze knob which served as acrest holder. A second is an ‘Imperial-Italic D’ helmet from the Rhineat Mainz, again iron with a great deal of bronze decoration attached,including embossed eagles and altars.39 Highly decorated or expensiveequipment has sometimes been interpreted as having belonged to offi-cers, solely on the grounds of its impressive appearance, but ownershipinscriptions indicate that this is not so: a significant number of helmetswith such inscriptions show that they belonged to ordinary soldiers andcavalrymen. The Theilenhofen cavalry helmet, for example, based onan archaic Attic design in tinned brass with embossed decoration and aneagle for a crest, has previously been claimed to have belonged to anofficer.40 However, punctim inscriptions indicate that the visually strikinghelmet had several owners, at least one of whom was an ordinary trooperand not an officer at all. In emulation of their officers, and for exactlythe same reasons, ordinary soldiers may have provided themselves withdistinctive helmet plumes to assist in the witnessing by officers and peers,and subsequent rewarding, of courageous actions. Though Robinsonsuggests that subunits such as cohorts and centuries might have identi-fied themselves by such means, there is no reason why individuals mightnot have done so as well.41

Wearing distinctive equipment was intended partly to ensure that anindividual, whatever his status, was visible on the battlefield, just as someparticipants in modern professional team sports choose distinctivelycoloured boots, the one item not restricted by team colours and design.42

16 Kate Gilliver


38 On the variations in sword-belts and their attachments, see M.C. Bishop, ‘The EarlyImperial “Apron’’’, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies III (1992), pp. 81–104,and on their significance as military identifiers, see Coulston, ‘Armed and Belted Men’,pp. 76–118.

39 Robinson, Armour, p. 100 (the Heddernheim helmet), p. 68 (the Mainz helmet).40 P. Connolly, Greece and Rome at War (London, 1981), p. 237; Robinson, Armour, p. 97.41 A soldier who led the Romans to success in an engagement in 282 BC was later believed

to have been Mars because of the distinctive helmet crest he had worn, which must havebeen different from other crests (Valerius Maximus 1.8.6).

42 Gold, silver, red, and, the most popular, white boots have been worn by football and rugbyplayers in recent years, attracting the attention of spectators, television cameras, and sportscommentators. Distinctive hairstyles are also worn by sportsmen to aid instant recognition,the most easily visible being the Mohican, which substitutes for a helmet crest.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 16



In both cases such choice of attire acts as a silent, visual challenge, boast-ing of the wearer’s skills and status as warrior or sportsman. The Gauls inLivy’s narratives of single combats with Romans are noted for the qualityof their equipment (Livy 7.9, 7.26), worn as an advertisement of theirmilitary prowess. Such claims may have encouraged an opponent to takeup a challenge from the warrior or seek an engagement with him becausevictory would enhance his own reputation, and the resultant spoils wouldbe worth more in terms of either financial reward or, for a Roman, thekudos to be obtained from the display of impressive trophies in his home.Indeed, this is implied by Livy in the rhetoric he attributes to the Romangenerals in the wars against the Samnites (Livy 9.40, 10.38), and in hisdescription of Telamon, Polybius states quite clearly his belief that, whilethe Romans might have been intimidated by the Gauls, they were alsofired up by the prospect of gaining valuable booty (Polybius 2.29). Itseems entirely likely that the reverse also happened, that Roman sol-diers and officers used their appearance and equipment to boast oftheir own military prowess, and in so doing set themselves up as poten-tially more valuable targets in battle, but also gave themselves a greateropportunity to be noticed and honoured for their bravery.

IV. Decorations for ValourA variety of different awards for valour in battle were available to Romansoldiers: promotions, financial rewards and the resultant possibility ofsocial advancement, public recognition, and, for the elite, the possibilityof enhanced political opportunities, and military decorations which pro-vided the most public declaration of courage. These awards came in aphysical form – coronae or crowns for particularly courageous actions,torques, armillae, and phalerae for lesser actions – and were worn on thebody, and in the case of the coronae, and perhaps the other decorationstoo, might be displayed in the recipient’s house as further advertisementof his bravery.43 Such awards were clearly valued very highly by therecipient, as illustrated by the dispute at Cartagena mentioned above,and their prominence on the tombstones of the early principate. Thedecorations, the ancient equivalent of the medals awarded in modernarmies, were worth far more than the simple monetary value of themetals from which they were manufactured, usually bronze or silver.Valerius Maximus reports one of Scipio Africanus’ cavalrymen preferringsilver armillae to a more valuable gold monetary reward because he couldthen have a permanent display of his courage (Valerius Maximus 8.14.5).Polybius considered the Romans to be obsessed with military decor-ations, along with punishments, and believed this went a long way toexplaining Roman military success (Polybius 6.39). Caesar even blamedhis defeat at Gergovia on overenthusiastic centurions seeking glory and



43 Livy 23.23; Maxfield, Military Decorations, provides a detailed study of the awards.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 17



military decorations (B.G. 7.47, 7.50), and though he is attempting toabsolve himself of responsibility for the setback, there is an element ofplausibility in his claim, given Plutarch’s later statement that it was partlyhis generosity in presenting his soldiers awards for courage that ensuredtheir extraordinary bravery and fanatical loyalty (Plutarch, Caes. 16–17).

Roman society or, in the imperial period, Roman military societyencouraged and expected those decorated and promoted for valour inbattle to repeat their bravery in the future. Centurions and standard-bearers were promoted for courage and leadership and were expectedto continue to show these qualities. The former centurion SpuriusLigustinus, decorated for bravery 34 times, claimed that no one in thearmy of any rank would surpass him in virtus, whatever rank he wasappointed at (Livy 42.24), while Caesar’s centurions Pullo and Vorenus,competing for an upcoming promotion to primus pilus, chief centurion,were aware that the most effective way of publicizing themselves and theirqualifications for the position was through overt displays of courage inbattle, and deliberately risked their lives to prove theirs, unnecessarilyleaving the defences of an encampment that was under German attack(Caesar, B.G. 5.44). Conversely, Caesar demoted several standard-bearersafter his setback against Pompey at Dyracchium because they had failedto show the leadership and courage expected of men of that rank(Caesar, B.Civ. 3.75). Centurions, standard-bearers, and other such offi-cers were highly visible in battle, identifiable not only to their own menthrough accoutrements such as the transverse crest or the standard,but also to the enemy, and this visibility may have contributed to the dis-proportionate casualty figures often reported among centurions andstandard-bearers. Likewise, soldiers who had been publicly recognizedand rewarded for their courage may have been marked out in battle bythe military decorations they wore.

In the only modern study of Roman military decorations, Maxfieldargued that soldiers would not have worn their decorations in battle.44

To do so ‘was to risk loss or damage to what were intrinsically, as well nodoubt as sentimentally, valuable items,’ but Maxfield admits that theymay not have been much safer left back in camp. There is little literaryevidence either for or against the wearing of decorations in battle, andwhat there is is unspecific and ambiguous, as Maxfield points out. Theinsignia which Caesar mentioned could not be put on when his armywas ambushed by the Nervii may have been decorations or some othersymbol of rank, and the same is true for those a victorious enemyattempted to despoil from the body of one of Caesar’s centurions in anengagement before Munda in 45 BC; either decorations or rank indi-cators would have served as valuable proof of military skill and couragein the latter case.45 Sculptural evidence is equally unhelpful. Althoughdecorations awarded to entire units are illustrated on the columns of

18 Kate Gilliver


44 Maxfield, Military Decorations, pp. 142–43.45 Caesar, B.G. 2.21; Bellum Hispaniensis 23.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 18



Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, attached to the unit’s standards, no individ-ual soldiers are depicted wearing decorations on the ‘public’ sculpturesof Trajan’s Column or Adamclisi. Individual awards are, however, aprominent feature of the funeral sculpture of the recipients (Figure 1).46

This in itself does not help to resolve the issue of whether these decora-tions were worn in battle, but it should not be assumed that they werenot because they were too valuable in monetary terms. Indeed, theirvalue and the values that they represented, as we shall see, were suchthat they were very likely to have been worn in battle. The Roman armywas not a modern army fighting modern warfare, but an ancient insti-tution which evolved from a warrior society fighting a style of warfare



46 Maxfield, Military Decorations, pp. 50–53.

Figure 1 Tombstone of Marcus Caelius, centurion of Legion XVIII.Prominently displayed are his military decorations: phalerae, torques, anda civic crown, awarded for saving the life of a Roman citizen in battle.Source: Landesmuseum, Bonn

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 19



in which both institutional and individual display had enormous sig-nificance. Soldiers of every rank and status dressed up to go to war andcontributed to the display of the army: they wore gilded helmets,enamelled scabbards, and belts plated with valuable enamels andmetals, all probably at least as valuable in monetary terms as the militarydecorations they may have had; these precious items of equipmentwere not left back in camp. The decorations clearly had a sentimentalvalue greatly superior to their monetary worth, as indicated by theexample of the cavalryman who preferred decorations to monetaryreward (Valerius Maximus 8.14.5), and they would probably have beenmuch safer on the individual than left behind in a camp that might belooted or abandoned. If only because of their value, soldiers had everyreason to wear their decorations in battle.

However, decorations were as much a part of a soldier’s identity as hismilitary equipment, and like the centurion’s transverse crest were a pub-lic statement of status and courage. Wearing them in battle might havehelped to bolster an individual’s courage with the memory of earliersuccessful actions in which the decorations were earned, and are likelyto have provided inspiration to others. As shown above, competition formilitary honours acted as a powerful incentive to both the recipients tomaintain their reputation and others to emulate those already dec-orated, and it is precisely on this effect that Caesar blamed his defeat atGergovia. The sight of such decorations adorning the recipients imme-diately before and during battle is likely to have provided ongoingencouragement to those fighting. Awards made to entire units were, itseems, worn into battle on the unit’s standards and most likely served thesame purpose, providing encouragement to the men of that unit and toother units to emulate them.47 As well as acting as an incentive to thebearers and their fellow soldiers, decorations, made of bright metals,usually bronze or silver, might have served in the same way as distinct-ive military equipment to attract the attention of the enemy. As aresult, the wearer might become more of a target to an enemy seekingto enhance his own reputation for courage in the same way that dis-tinctive equipment declared the wearer to be a target worthy of fight-ing and defeating, not just for the value of the plundered gear but forthe kudos that would come from a successful action. Through a trad-ition or expectation of wearing military decorations in battle, a Romansoldier who had been publicly rewarded for bravery became more of apotential target and, through a combination of that and the expect-ations of a military society, had significant incentives to set an example

20 Kate Gilliver


47 Competition between units and their subdivisions was recommended by militarytheorists (Onasander 42) and employed by generals to speed up work on entrenchments(Josephus, B.Iud. 5.502–507); no doubt such competition extended to success in battle,particularly once units acquired permanent existence in the early principate. Thestormy relationship between Legion XVIII Gemina and ‘their’ Batavian auxiliaries maywell have had its origins in such inter-unit rivalries (Tacitus, Hist. 1.59–64, 2.27–28).

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 20





of valour in the future. Military decorations, earned through acts ofconspicuous courage, perhaps served not just to reward and publicizea hero, but to ensure that he maintained his heroic actions.

Physical display was a central feature of Roman armies on campaign.Contrary to the literary ideal of plain, rough soldiers, Roman armieswere as aware as any others of the importance and value of looking thepart. They used their appearance as a means of bolstering their ownunit cohesion and morale, and of intimidating the enemy throughtheir impressive aspect. Combined with that most traditional ofRoman military qualities, discipline, well-drilled armies could providethemselves with a significant psychological advantage over the enemyeven before an engagement began. Yet the Roman army was not amonolithic institution manned by uniformed soldiers: it had evolvedfrom the warrior bands of the early republic, and it is not surprising tosee some of the values of warrior societies continuing even when mili-tary organization became as sophisticated as Rome’s did by the middleto late republic. The system of rewards stimulated individualism, andtherefore individuals were encouraged to enhance their own visibilityon the battlefield through personal display. Those who were successfulin having their courageous actions spotted by their superiors might berewarded in such a way as to enhance their visibility and thereby impelthem to continue their brave deeds.

1-21 WIH-071038.qxd 23/11/06 1:51PM Page 21



display in roman warfare the appearance of armies and individuals on the battlefield war in history...

Documents

roman experience of

nature of roman battle

roman understanding

roman warfare

roman equivalent

roman state

appearance of roman

roman armies experiences