Centurions

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Where have all the Centurions gone?
Long time passing…
Where have all the Centurions gone?
Long, long ago.
Where have all the Centurions gone?
Gone from Trajan's Column every one…
From this what can we learn?
What will we ever learn…

(With apologies to Peter, Paul, and Mary and their 1963 folk hit tune)


Why no transverse crests on T’s C? Any ideas?

Ralph

[Zenobia of Palmyra]

A good question...maybe only common soldiers were portayed on the Column so as to make it more appealing to the common citizens of Rome, looking upon it?

[Narukami]

Excellent question Ralph.

The Imperial Roman Army by Yann Le Bohec (c1989 ISBN: 0-7818-0259-8) has a section of drawings taken from Trajan's Column and it would appear that none of the officers are wearing helmets at all. (Like a Hollywood movie were the stars don't wear helmets for fear of covering their face.)

There is one exception: Plate #53 Trajan inspects building a camp. The officers with Trajan are wearing helmets with crests.
Also, Plate 83 Soldiers Foraging, there appears to be an Auxiliary wearing a crested helmet
And, Plate 79 Sacrifice and Purification of a camp, the cavalry seem to be wearing crests on their helmets, but it is difficult to tell.

Plenty of sections with legionaries wearing helmets and the signifer all seem to be helmeted.

However, I can not find a single transverse crest.
So, where indeed have all the Centurions gone?

:? ? ?

Narukami

[Zenobia of Palmyra]

Did centurions ALWAYS have a transverste crest???

[LvpvsRomanvs]

There have been theories that say the centurions would be recognised by their red tunics - but now this would raise the question 'were tunics in the roman army uniformly coloured?' - that has been an argument for a long time.

My personal opinion is that legionaries had off-white or brown tunics, some red-brown, and that centurions had a richer more vibrant red. But again, this can be disputed.

One could also say it could have been their cloaks - but I don't think they would have worn them in battle. Hmm...that's just raised another topic. Anyway, there could have been many qays to distinguish a centurion in battle. Other than red, more vibrant tunic colour, I can't think of another way to identify a centurion in battle if they don't wear a crest - apart from the fact he'll probably be in the frontline slaughtering barbarians with skill and encouraging the other men...or dead as in many cases...

- Lorenzo.

[jvrjenivs]

Isn't there a quote suggesting that centuriones did wear silvered helmets?

Also I think that we also put few weight in the use of rings and jewellery as a mark of rank. Okay, that doesn't seems to be a way of recognizing rank in battle, but it could be in the camp or on the road.

[Graham Sumner]

Lorenzo wrote:

There have been theories that say the centurions would be recognised by their red tunics - but now this would raise the question 'were tunics in the roman army uniformly coloured?' - that has been an argument for a long time.

My personal opinion is that legionaries had off-white or brown tunics, some red-brown, and that centurions had a richer more vibrant red. But again, this can be disputed.

That theory sounds familiar!

Isn't there a quote suggesting that centuriones did wear silvered helmets?

Yes Jurjen it is from Vegetius.

Graham.

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Some of the higher ranking Romans in T's C are recognisable. Trajan of course, and Sura. There are a number of individuals wearing crested helmets, including a scene where Trajan addresses an assembly of soldiers, but they are all wearing "Attic" helmets, with segmentatas. (I think this is the same one you are refering to, David, plate 79. The Le Bohec drawings are a bit vague, but the photograph I referenced is reasonably clear. I lost my link the photograpic image set of the entire column.)The same "Attic" and segmentata convention appears on the base of the column. The "Attic" type is not attested to in the archaeological record. I have suggested that this convention might represent the Centurionate, but this is conjecture, as well as the existance of the "Attic" type. This Attic convention in propagandistic and public art appears well into the 3rd century and beyond in simplified form. An earlier, and well known relief that has been attributed both to a date of Nero's period, and to be Praetorians, depicts both the Attic and the musculata in detailed style. It has been suggested the central figure is Tigillinus. I do know know if there is any proof in this, or what ranks the refief may represent. I has also been dated as late Claudian.

Ralph

EDIT: About 7-8 years ago there was a site that had the entire T's C in high detail phographs. I do not know what happened to this site. I lost my link and cannot find it again.

[LvpvsRomanvs]

It is usually suggested that the plumed soldiers on Trajan's Column are Praetorians. However, now you mention it, they could well represent the centurionate. But then there would be the dispute of deciding whether the centurion's plume was traverse or otherwise.

As far as I am aware, there are no centurions (or what we, at the moment, could identify as centurions) represented on the Tropaeum Traiani either?

- Lorenzo.

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Transverse crests do appear in a few reliefs that are from the Early Principate and before. I reference the frieze near the Capotiline Hill. I am not sure of the date of the tombstone of T Claudius Severus. Cresting seems to disappear from the rank and file by the time of the Dacian Wars, and cross-bracing is seen from then on, although there is evidence the cresting of cross-braced helmets in the third century. A third century tombstone, that of Severius Acceptus found near Instanbul, has been considered to be that of a Centurion due to the presence of greaves. This tombstone does display the "Attic". However, since greaves have been found to more widly used that previously thought, this interpretation may be brought into question.

Ralph

[A_Volpe]

Some of the higher ranking Romans in T's C are recognisable.

With apologies, slightly twisting your words here

It may be possible that soldiers were able to recognize their officers by their face, and probably by their individual kits (ie things like torques, dona, perhaps even armor and weapons)
And relied less on what their helmets looked like - Seeing as it's possible that a majority of the helmets in use are among the same kind of shape and style.

As mentioned in another post, Fashion Dictates. I realize it's not a great comparison, but looking at the 17th century, being where the [Dutch] are copying 'everything' Roman and Macedonian for their armies - they'd want to "stand out" on the field by what they are wearing. I do not recall seeing a reference about knowing who your captain was solely by his helmet (or hat) - but by his entire outfit, inasmuch as what he carried (ie: Partisan, Halberd et cetera, Sash)

To take a real stretch, looking at the Fayum portraits, there is that one that a number of people strongly argue is a portrait of a Roman Centurion - I believe in addition to his clothing, he is wearing a gold leaf crown / Corona (which is what I believe people call out as to why he's called a Centurion in the first place)

Also, considering a Centurion is not going to wander off from his "post" at his position in the Century when deployed, the Soldiers I'm sure would be confident to know where to look and where to expect their commander to be at any one time. When in camp, I'm pretty sure the soldiers would be able to recognize their officer's face after a short amount of time (easily done when he's glaring at you)

This fashion and position to signify one being an officer remains in effect will into the modern age. Officers in the American Civil War typically wore their own custom made clothing, and of styles that were different than the regular soldiers. Zouaves are a good example of this, both in French/European and US aspects.

I don't know how it works in the modern military, but, can a soldier easily tell their commander out of a crowd? Distinctive voice and mannerism?
We even see this is cartoons - notably with "Beetle Bailey" - it is very easy to tell Sgt. Snorkel from Beetle or the other soldiers; Lt. Fuzz from Gen. Halftrack, et cetera....You always know it's going to be Drill Sgt. Hartman / R. Lee Ermey because of his voice and his mannerisms, his cover/lid only adds to his "look". You hear Ermey's voice in a Radio ad, I am sure you will conjure up an image of him with his cover on his head...Screaming at you...

Also, The centurion "Hand me another" wasn't given that name because of what his helmet looked like.

[LvpvsRomanvs]

I agree. I think if you were serving in the legions you could tell who the centurion was - as I'm sure you would have had many encounters with him outside of the battlefield.

I have had no military experience myself, but I have seen footage of some of the fighting, and most the men seem to just know who their commander is even if he's wearing the same uniform (save the rank insignia, I guess). But this is just speculative.

- Lorenzo.

[Crispvs]

For what it's worth, here goes:

It was Vegetius who said that centuriones in ancient times wore tranverse crests (crista traversa). This seems to be confirmed by the first century AD stele of T. Calidius Severus and M. Petronius Classicus, both of which show helmets with transverse crests.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

A further transverse crest is shown on the Arch of Orange.

Polybios, writing in the late second century BC wrote that centuriones often tinned or silvered their helmets to make them stand out.

The Imperial Gallic type 'D' helmet which was unfortunately destroyed during the Second World War features a double tube central crest fitting which has been suggested to be for the more stable attachment of a transverse crest.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/

The Imperial Gallic type 'F' helmet from Sisac featured rings attached to the sides, rather than at front and back along with a central crest holder, presumably for the attachment of a transverse crest and it had also been silvered. In addition to this the silver foil had been decorated with punched scrolling decoration
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/

I don't know of any evidence for transverse crests after the mid first century AD (although that is simply probably because the physical evidence is limited at this stage to the examples already mentioned), but there seems little reason to suggest that the practice would not have continued for longer. By Vegetius' time however, the wearing of transverse crests had evidently long since ceased. When this happened we do not know, although it might be tempting to speculate that it might have been connected to the introduction of cross bracing on helmets during the Dacian wars, which would possibly have obscured the attachment points for crests. Certainly neither the Hebron helmet, the Theilenhofen helmet or the contemporary helmet from Brigetio feature any obvious crest attachment methods, suggesting that the wearing of crests by infantry had ceased by the mid second century AD, which might mean that centuriones may have been distinguished by some other means by then.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/

As has already been pointed out, officers on Trajan's Column are shown bareheaded, so there is no help there. As to the identification of Praetorian guardsmen on the column, Praetorian standards, decorated with horizontal wreaths are consistently shown being carried by soldiers standing close to Trajan. A study of the shield blazons on the column shows that only three shield blazons are associated with these standards, suggesting that the sculptors were trying to show the presence of three Praetorian cohorts. I will not comment here on the accuracy or otherwise of the blazons used but within the context of the column itself Praetorians should be able to be identified by both their association with these standards and by their shield blazons.

Regarding the wearing of red by centuriones, this was first proposed a few years ago in an article by Nick Fuentes which has been widely referenced in academic circles, meaning it has found its way into a number of other books and articles. However, Fuentes was highly selective with his evidence and was also unaware of some of the sources which have since been identified. I would commend Graham's well informed opinion here, when he says that the difference between the tunics of the rank and file and their much better paid centuriones would probably be a matter of the quality of the cloth and possibly the strength of the dye, if any, used to colour it.

How centuriones were distinguished from other soldiers on the field of battle after the introduction of cross bracing is anybody's guess. Perhaps is was by their cloaks, but fighting in a cloak is not particularly practical and cloaks are unlikely to show above the heads of other men. Silvering of their helmets is another possibility but we also know that by the fourth century AD it was common practice to silver helmets anyway, by that time silvered helmets could not have been a distinguishing feature for centuriones. Horse tails or ribbons, attached to rings on the tops of helmets are another possibility and both the Deir El Medineh and Guttman Imperial Italic type 'H' helmet feature such rings, but our sample is so small that we cannot be sure that most helmets of that period did not have similar rings. Certainly, soldiers shown on the Arch of Galerius seem to be wearing helmets similar to the Deir El Medineh helmet, topped with rings so there may not be any rank significance in them. The jewels and paste settings in some late Roman helmets may be indicators of rank but then again, they may not be. You pay your money and you take your choice, as they say.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p239 ... fig135.png

The presence of greaves on the stele of Serverus Acceptus does not necessarily indicate any particular rank, as greaves actually had a long history with the ran and file and may have been more commonly worn than is often supposed. They are certainly shown being worn by soldiers on the Adamklissi metopes and images in the much later Notitia Dignitatum show greaves along with other standard items of kit such as mail shirts, helmets, swords and manicae.

I hope all of this is of some use in answering the question.

Crispvs

[LvpvsRomanvs]

The Imperial Gallic type 'D' helmet which was unfortunately destroyed during the Second World War features a double tube central crest fitting which has been suggested to be for the more stable attachment of a transverse crest.

If it wasn't for all these wars destroying all these finds I think we'd have a better idea of the Roman army....but unfortunately, nothing can be changed - all we can do it search for more. That's something that suprises me. There are several battlefields where there have hardly been any excavations at all! Caer Caradoc (as far as I'm aware it may be confirmed in Shropshire due to some of the finds there e.g. arrow-heads and bits of sword blades) for instance. I'd think one could find a lot there but no one really bothers...because of the landowners, I suppose.

Anyway, back on topic. The hard thing about re-searching armies is that they always change. I'm sure the centurion had many different appearances over the years. It's just a matter of piecing together the evidence.

By the way, excellent research Crispvs!

- Lorenzo

[Doc]

Crispus,

Not to go OT but the other feature that is telling of the transverse crest in the Gallic D is the absense of holes on the front and back of the helmet as well. Also the silver decorative rosettes that adorn the entire helmet. Again it is a common misconception that the brass cheekpiece is the way the helmet was originally made. It is too bad that the helmet was destroyed because I wonder if it was silvered. From the original report on this helmet, there is no inidication of foil or any silvering. Of course considering how thin silver foil is, it is not a surprise if it were gone.

However, how would an iron helmet be silvered? Direct application of molten, liquid, or whatever silver does not cause the necessary redox reaction for it to deposit.
I looked into having my version of the Gallic D helmet silvered and was told that the only way was to first cover the entire helmet with a copper coating followed by a silver coat. Now, I am not saying that I know how the Romans did their coating but IMHO, I think that their silvered iron objects were probably covered with foil while their copper alloy objects were silvered by any variety of liquid methods or even foil. I do not know what technology they possesed for coating because the certainly did not have plating in the modern sense.