Mailed soldiers on the Arch of Galerius

[Urselius]

Interestingly the soldier on the far right (lower) of the relief has what appears to be an image of an eagle carrying a thunderbolt on his shield. The eagle and thunderbolt were attributes of the god Jupiter, could this man be intended to be a member of the Ioviani?

[Nathan Ross]

Interestingly the soldier on the far right (lower) of the relief has what appears to be an image of an eagle carrying a thunderbolt on his shield.

He does indeed! Actually, it looks very similar to the 'eagle on a corn cob' design that I've seen elsewhere in illustrations of later Roman cavalry - does this actually come from somewhere else (Column of M Aurelius, maybe?), or is this the origin?

Then again, the image above looks suspiciously clear and complete compared to the previous ones - I'm guessing it's a 'restored' version? In which case, is this very obvious eagle-and-thunderbolt just a hypothetical reconstruction?

Inscriptions demonstrate that the Guard remained the most senior unit in the army during the reign of Diocletian. The praetorians in Rome during the Tetrarchic period were merely the remansores from the ten cohorts. The evidence strongly suggests that each Augustus and Caesar had his own contingent (the praetorian equivalent of legionary vexillations) and they accompanied the emperors on campaign - some of these guards units may have been granted new titles, but they were praetorians.

Is there more evidence than the mentions in Lactantius etc? It strikes me that the praetoriani he writes about destroying the church in Nicomedia might not be soldiers of the Praetorian Guard as such, but merely the term used for any imperial bodyguard unit. If these guards were 'granted new titles', can we assume they were still the same men? I would have thought disbanding the Praetorians entirely after 312 rather unnecessary, if it was only a rump of Maxentian supporters that had fought against Constantine, while Constantine's 'own' praetorians presumably fought very well on his side...

I think that it would be very much possible that the nation in question was the Sarmatians... as those commanded off to Britain by a certain Lucius Artorius Castus

Surely you're joking, Robert! hock: :wink:

- Nathan

[Vincula]

Surely you're joking, Robert! hock: :wink:

I think he is. http://antoninuspius.blogspot.com/

[Robert Vermaat]

I think that it would be very much possible that the nation in question was the Sarmatians... as those commanded off to Britain by a certain Lucius Artorius Castus

Surely you're joking, Robert! hock: :wink:
- Nathan

I think he is. http://antoninuspius.blogspot.com/

Well, it WAS over a year ago.. but I think not. I mentioned the Sarmatians as the possible enemy that was defeated by Galerius, and that's entirely possible. Castus was of course also historical, as were the Sarmatians being transported to Britain. But no, Castus was no A...ur. :wink:

I like that blog. :wink:

[Urselius]

What is depicted is a formal adlocutio, an address to the troops, it would be strange if all these soldiers were meant to be from the same unit. Virtually every depiction of an emperor surrounded by troops, where unit or troop-type distinctions (such as the variety of shield insignia on the Missorium of Valentinian) are visible, show a number of units. No Roman emperor would be represented on a piece of public art with only a single military unit, except perhaps when enthroned with guardsmen in attendance.

I suspect that what we see is a mix of units, and probably a mix of cavalry and infantry at that. After all both types of soldier were commonly equipped with shields, helmets and body armour.

[Robert Vermaat]

What is depicted is a formal adlocutio, an address to the troops, it would be strange if all these soldiers were meant to be from the same unit. Virtually every depiction of an emperor surrounded by troops, where unit or troop-type distinctions (such as the variety of shield insignia on the Missorium of Valentinian) are visible, show a number of units. No Roman emperor would be represented on a piece of public art with only a single military unit, except perhaps when enthroned with guardsmen in attendance.
I suspect that what we see is a mix of units, and probably a mix of cavalry and infantry at that. After all both types of soldier were commonly equipped with shields, helmets and body armour.

Indeed a good idea, I had not thought of that. The Missorium of Theodosius also shows at least two different units (displayed twice).

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

What is depicted is a formal adlocutio, an address to the troops, it would be strange if all these soldiers were meant to be from the same unit. Virtually every depiction of an emperor surrounded by troops, where unit or troop-type distinctions (such as the variety of shield insignia on the Missorium of Valentinian) are visible, show a number of units. No Roman emperor would be represented on a piece of public art with only a single military unit, except perhaps when enthroned with guardsmen in attendance.

I suspect that what we see is a mix of units, and probably a mix of cavalry and infantry at that. After all both types of soldier were commonly equipped with shields, helmets and body armour.

I think this is a very plausible suggestion. I certainly think that with so few horses illustrated it is a bit of a stretch to say the emperor is addressing only a cavalry unit.

[Nathan Ross]

Interestingly the soldier on the far right (lower) of the relief has what appears to be an image of an eagle carrying a thunderbolt on his shield. The eagle and thunderbolt were attributes of the god Jupiter, could this man be intended to be a member of the Ioviani?

I thought I'd resusitate this thread a moment.

Yesterday I was glancing through a new biography of Constantine by Paul Stephenson. One of the photos in the book shows a section of the Arch of Galerius I've not seen before - a soldier holding a shield with a very prominent relief figure of Hercules. The figure, standing and holding a club, is positioned above the boss of the shield, in the same place as the 'eagle and thunderbolt' mentioned in the post quoted above.

I don't know on which part of the arch this figure appears, and I can't find any reference or illustration of it elsewhere. Does anyone either have the book, or have a similar picture of the figure and shield?

It would seem possible, if this figure and the 'adlocutio' scene are close together, that the soldiers represented - or some of them at least - are not guardsmen or Sarmatians, but, as suggested above, legionary soldiers of the Joviani and Herculiani.

- Nathan

[jho]

The person you are referring to is on the very left of the panel immediately below the panel with the scale armoured "cavalry". You can find (and a load of high resolution pics of the arch) here:

[url:2411wuup]http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/10599/1/DSCN8613.JPG[/url]

The Ioviani/Herculiani idea is very speculative but has a certain appeal. One could further speculate that the Herculiani later adopted the less offensive eagle symbol from the Ioviani (as shown in the Notitia Dignitatum) when the Empire became Christian.

[Nathan Ross]

Splendid! Thanks Jens - that's a wonderful resource. The 'Hercules' shield is shown in close up here:

[url:3gablx5s]http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/10549/1/DSCN8620.JPG[/url]

The soldiers in this panel are all wearing tunic and sagum, but the panel above clearly has the man on the right carrying the 'eagle' shield in scale armour and helmet, like the other figures. Perhaps the upper scene shows a battlefield address to the troops, and the lower one a gathering in camp? The lowest panel has a better depiction of the 'eagle' shield, with what appears to be an unusual 'segmented' or fluted boss:

[url:3gablx5s]http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/10554/1/DSCN8625.JPG[/url] (*edited - wrong link!)

Another of the panels, the lower one on this picture, also appears to show the 'eagle' shield carried by a man in scale armour. But the upper panel here, interestingly, has two soldiers carrying curved rectangular scuta - in AD298! - unusual...

[url:3gablx5s]http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/10526/1/DSCN8594.JPG[/url]

The Ioviani/Herculiani idea is very speculative but has a certain appeal. One could further speculate that the Herculiani later adopted the less offensive eagle symbol from the Ioviani (as shown in the Notitia Dignitatum) when the Empire became Christian.

I wondered about that too - it does sound plausible. Has there been any study of this that you know of?

Also interesting - the shields on the Galerius arch actually resemble some of those found at Dura Europos (the heavily decorated ones with figures of gods, heroes and eagles). Whereas the shield designs from the Luxor temple frieze, which apparently date from approximately the same period - if they really are shields - are far more abstract, and look more like the ND designs.

- Nathan

[jho]

Another of the panels, the lower one on this picture, also appears to show the 'eagle' shield carried by a man in scale armour. But the upper panel here, interestingly, has two soldiers carrying curved rectangular scuta - in AD298! - unusual...

And even more unusual that they are fighting AGAINST the Romans! If I recollect correctly, H. P. Laubscher (Der Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbogens in Thessaloniki, Berlin 1975) interpreted them as Armenians, I forgot on what basis.

I am not aware of any specific work on the shields of the Ioviani and Herculani (except for references in the many works pro and con the reliability of the shields in the ND) but have a faint recollection that David Woods, Julian, Arbogastes, and the signa of the Ioviani and Herculian, journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 6 (1995), interpreted a reference in a source on the battle at the Frigidus to certain statues of Jupiter on a throne as a reference to the Signa of the Ioviani which had been "re-paganized" by Eugenius.

[Urselius]

Also worth noting are the unmistakable remains of scale armour on more than one of the Roman cavalrymen in the upper register.

[Nathan Ross]

H. P. Laubscher (Der Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbogens in Thessaloniki, Berlin 1975) interpreted them as Armenians, I forgot on what basis.

Margaret S Pond Rothman's The Thematic Organization of the Panel Reliefs on the Arch of Galerius (American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 81, 4, 1977) mentions Laubscher's belief that the figures with the rectangular scuta are 'Kurdish or Armenian allies' - this is because their equipment appears so unusual and distinctive, and the battle appears to be portrayed in a rocky landscape. The problem with this interpretation might be that the Armenians at the time were supposedly Roman allies, and fighting with Galerius to evict the Persian occupiers from their country. Rothman instead supposes that the figures are indeed Persian infantry, and that the scene represents the final battle of the campaign.

It's an interesting article generally, in fact, with descriptions all all the panels and an attempted interpretation of what they represent - I confess I never knew there was so much visual information there! Some more shield patterns here, apparently Persian - Rothman refers to this panel as showing (imaginary) single combat between Galerius and Narses:

[url:3im3da2k]http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/10565/1/DSCN8638.JPG[/url]

- Nathan

[Robert Vermaat]

The Ioviani/Herculiani idea is very speculative but has a certain appeal. One could further speculate that the Herculiani later adopted the less offensive eagle symbol from the Ioviani (as shown in the Notitia Dignitatum) when the Empire became Christian.

Can you give me a bit more information? The Herculiani and Ioviani (if you are talking about the two comitatenses regiments mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum) were only promoted to guards units under Diocletian and Maximian, after the reign of Galerius. It's also claimed that they received these names only during/after that promotion, in honour of the two emperors who associated themselves with Jupiter and Hercules.
I know it's argued that they were originally the legions V Iovia and VI Herculia, but that is by no means sure (also on the grounds of that claim about the names).

Or are we talking about soldiers of the Legio V Iovia and VI Herculia?

If not, what exactly are the arguments that the Herculiani seem to appear with Galerius before their promotion and (apparent) renaming?

[Nathan Ross]

The Herculiani and Ioviani (if you are talking about the two comitatenses regiments mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum) were only promoted to guards units under Diocletian and Maximian, after the reign of Galerius. It's also claimed that they received these names only during/after that promotion, in honour of the two emperors who associated themselves with Jupiter and Hercules.

The joint rule of Diocletian and Maximian dates from 285. In 293 the tetrarchy was instituted, and Galerius was promoted to Caesar under Diocletian. The Persian war was c.298, and Galerius became Augustus in 305. (I know you know all this, Robert! wink: )

- Nathan