Roman shield emblem database

[Marcus Mummius]

Hi Andrew,

I send you a PM.

Kind regards,
Jef

[John M McDermott]

This was written by the Roman historian Vegetius,
Epitoma Rei Militarius, II.18


"The names and ranks of soldiers are to be written on the face of their
shields. To prevent soldiers straying from their comrades at any time in
the confusion of battle, they painted different signs for different cohorts
on their shields, digmata as they call themselves, and it is customary to
do this even now. Also the name of each soldier was inscribed in letters
on the face of his shield, with a note of which cohort or century he was
from."

[Matt Lukes]

That's a slightly different translation than I've seen before:

Lest the soldiers in the confusion of battle should be separated from their comrades, every cohort had its shields painted in a manner peculiar to itself. The name of each soldier was also written on his shield, together with the number of the cohort and century to which he belonged.

No mention of rank or that the personal information should be written on the front of the scutum. Of course I know that translations are not always super-accurate, so here's what is supposed to be the actual text:

(XVIII.) Sed ne milites aliquando in tumultu proelii a suis contubernalibus aberrarent, diuersis cohortibus diuersa in scutis signa pingebant, ut ipsi nominant, digmata, sicut etiam nunc moris est fieri. Praeterea in aduerso scuto uiuscuiusque militis litteris erat nomen adscriptum, addito et ex qua esset cohorte quaue centuria.

I don't really know any Latin, but the translator program I have doesn't seem to show any mention of rank or that the information was specifically on the front- or did I miss it?

Matt

[Tib. Gabinius]

Just to mention it (once more). Vegetius report about imperial army out of late roman period view.
And he reports about military field without beeing out of this direction anywhere.
And he combined the information about republican, imperial and in some parts already late roman army to a sometimes confusing view.

Those kind of reports we already find in Polybios, who told us, that the shields were made of two (2) layers, while they are indeed made of 3, what we discovered in Fayum and Dura Shields.

So dont be to fanatic in the words of details reported.
Its quite possible nothing (like ikonographic sources tell us) stood on the front (or back), or what Vegetius reported or even more.
Perhaps it also was the backside.... we cant clear it anymore, either we find a shield with conservated decore.

[Matt Lukes]

Certainly this is all true, and thus we can't truly take anything Vegitius, Polybius, etc. wrote as gospel- but as with so much else, it's all we have at the moment and since this is simply a matter of translation, it's worth getting it right. I always thought it was an interesting detail to include in an impression- the personalization of a scutum- and indeed since names have been found marked on helmets and other equipment, it seems perfectly reasonable the same could have been true for the scutum. Whether or not it was as formally done as Vegitius suggests is another question altogether.

The thing I would bear in mind is that Polybius did have it right: shields were made of multiple ply wood- he just got the number wrong. The iconographic evidence does show that Vegitius has it right that many different emblems were painted on the faces of scuta- it's only whether or not they're cohort-specific, or legion-specific or even individual, we don't yet know. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider that he might have the personalization marking right as well- at least that it was done, not that it was universal or done for the entire Republican/ Imperial period, etc. The details might also be correct- at least for a single instance in time, unit, etc.

The inclusion of rank and the positioning on the face of the shield are such specific details that it seems worth checking the original text to see if they're actually there or are just a result of liberal translation. It may be proven wrong one day, but it makes no sense to add this detail to a reconstruction and contradict the only information source, by including/ omitting rank and deliberately choosing to paint the opposite side to that mentioned, yes?

[TR M VALERIVS]

I concur that the exact translation of the Vegetius quote is difficult for non-Latin speakers [from that period, to be even more accurate] to discern. That soldiers mark their gear is a timeless practice, though, one that corroborates the probability that the shields were marked somewhere with the owner's name (and/or his cohort, legion, name of centurio, et al.). And while I've never seen a reenactor embellish his name on the front of his shield, one must admit that there are two large "nametag" shapes (i.e., tabulum) on the front, to either side of the boss, at least on the most well-known and often-copied ones (VIII and XIIII). Though the tabulum appear blank on the monuments, we're fairly certain now that the monuments were painted in lifelike colors, and the name[s] could presumably have been painted in.

Likewise, having it on the back make sense, since the shield-fronts were entirely covered most of the time except during combat (and probably guard duty), per current thinking. So long as each reenactor unit is fairly uniform about how it's done within their unit (either all on the front or all on the back), I think one would be hard-pressed to discount either method.

M VALERIVS
aka Jim Whitley

[Tarbicus]

since the shield-fronts were entirely covered most of the time except during combat (and probably guard duty)

Are we absolutely certain of this?

[Matt Lukes]

I wouldn't actually think this necessarily a good thing- a water-resistent leather cover would keep humitidy in and might not be terribly good for the wooden shield- at the very least you run the risk of growing some lovely mold...

[Marcus Mummius]

And what will be the colour of the mould?

Lol sorry, getting a bit colour fixated overhere :lol:

[Peroni]

Quote:
since the shield-fronts were entirely covered most of the time except during combat (and probably guard duty)

Are we absolutely certain of this?

No as far as I'm aware we're not! But surely if you are on guard duty the emblem of the shield would need to be seen, especially in times of civil war.

[Matt Lukes]

And what will be the colour of the mould?

Lol sorry, getting a bit colour fixated overhere :lol:

RED :lol:

[TR M VALERIVS]

Ave, Tarbicus!

Quote:
since the shield-fronts were entirely covered most of the time except during combat (and probably guard duty)

Are we absolutely certain of this?

Um, no. Which is why my statement actually read:

since the shield-fronts were entirely covered most of the time except during combat (and probably guard duty), per current thinking.

I'm not certain whether you simply misread my quote, or are refuting the entirety of evidence that shows/tells of the Romans with shield covers while on administrative marches and the like (Trajan's Column, Vegetius, Connolly, Embelton, Sumner, McBride, Peterson...). I will assume the former, unless you inform us otherwise.

Ave, Matt!

a water-resistent leather cover would keep humitidy in and might not be terribly good for the wooden shield- at the very least you run the risk of growing some lovely mold...

[color=darkblue]The only instance I can think of that fits your mold suggestion would be if the Romans returned from a movement with their shield covers saturated with water, then stored them in a warmer environment without removing the covers beforehand. I certainly cannot envision the Romans (or any ancient culture) disregarding their equipment as such. That the Romans took care and cleaning of their equipment to new levels in the ancient world is well attested to. Regardless, I had originally meant “when exposed out of doorsâ€

[Tarbicus]

Yup, looks like we're pretty certain of it :wink:

[Peroni]

Barker, P. 1972 WRGP 90pp ARMIES AND ENEMIES OF IMPERIAL ROME

Organisation, tactics, dress & weapons. 150 BC. to 600AD. 146 illus. & 200 shield patterns.

I expect the patterns are taken from the Notitia Dignitatum and possibly Trajan's Column.

Available second-hand from here..
http://www.paulmeekins.co.uk/ancient/ancientindex.htm

[Matt Lukes]

[quote]I certainly cannot envision the Romans (or any ancient culture) disregarding their equipment as such. That the Romans took care and cleaning of their equipment to new levels in the ancient world is well attested to. Regardless, I had originally meant “when exposed out of doorsâ€