Auxiliary standards

[Tony Riches]

Hello chaps, a quick request for expertise, please. I need to get an understanding of what an auxiliary cohort's standard would have looked like by comparison with that of a legion cohort. Not all that much different, I'm guessing, but I'd appreciate an opinion from someone with the requisite knowledge. I'm (obviously) looking at the question from a Tungrian perspective, but that level of detail is probably too much to expect given the arcane nature of the subject, so I'd be happy with an answer based on any known auxiliary standard.

Thanks in advance,

Tony.

[Peroni]

A good place to start would be the RA.com imagebase for grave stele. Also Trajan's Column.

[Tony Riches]

A good place to start would be the RA.com imagebase for grave stele. Also Trajan's Column.

Thanks Adrian, I'll give it a squint.

[Peroni]

The stone of Pintaeus is a good one to study... One of our members has a copy of this standard. Of note is the fact that the eagle has one raised and one dropped wing.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

[Tony Riches]

The stone of Pintaeus is a good one to study... One of our members has a copy of this standard. Of note is the fact that the eagle has one raised and one dropped wing.
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

Now that's interesting! Do you think it'd be possible to get a photo of the copy? I expect (whisper it quietly) that Hodder would be happy to make a donation in return. The eagle appears to be in quite a strange place, but that might just be my failure to get my head round the sculture. This could potentially make the cover of Empire 3, with an appropriate name check, or course.

[Matthew Amt]

Unless I'm forgetting something, the signum was the standard for a *century*, not a cohort. So an auxiliary unit must have used a vexillum or something like that for a standard that denoted the entire cohort. Certainly could have been differences between legionary and auxiliary signa, though.

Matthew

[ValentinianVictrix]

This from Ammianus pertains to an incident that appears to indicate that when Late Roman auxilia units were paired together, which appears to be a standard practice, they shared a common standard-

'Lastly Charietto himself, by boldly opposing his body and by reproachful words,
held back his retreating men, and by confidence caused by his long stand, tried
to wipe out shame and disgrace; but fell pierced by a fatal shaft. After his
death the standard of the Eruli and Batavians was taken, which the barbarians
with insulting cries and dancing with joy frequently raised on high and
displayed, until after hard struggles it was recovered.' AMM Bk27 1, 5/6

Here is the latin for the relevant portion of the above-

'Post cuius interitum Erulorum Batavorumque vexillum direptum, quod insultando
tripudiantes barbari crebro sublatum altius ostendebant, post certamina receptum
est magna.'

The latin is a strong indication that it was a single standard shared between the Batavi Seniores and Heruli Seniores auxilia units.

[Peroni]

Unless I'm forgetting something, the signum was the standard for a *century*, not a cohort

I'm aware that the signum discs have been suggested as the century designator, but if we look at the inscription on the grave stele of Pintaius, it states;
"Pintaius, son of Pedilicus, from the castellum Intercatia in Asturia across the mountain, signifer of the Cohors V Asturum. It does not mention the century.

There's also this piece possibly from a signum which denotes a cohort designation (Roman Military Equipment by Bishop & Coulston, Edition 2, 2006)

Cohort Standard for COH VII RAETORUM, Landesmuseum Bonn
http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... ignum.html

[Forty-One]

I'm aware that the signum discs have been suggested as the century designator, but if we look at the inscription on the grave stele of Pintaius, it states;
"Pintaius, son of Pedilicus, from the castellum Intercatia in Asturia across the mountain, signifer of the Cohors V Asturum. It does not mention the century.

But that doesn't mean anything. None of the legionary signiferi mention either a cohort or a century on their inscriptions either.

[markhebb]

Based on the text from Ammianus then the Eruli and Batavians carried a Vexillum - although as I found in my study on this topic, we have to be careful using literary evidence for "technical" Roman military issues. Often authors use general language or insert one 'catch-all' term that is not precise. For example Greek writers often use Doryphoros to describe bodyguard units without saying whether they are Praetorians or Equites etc etc.

The same can be true with military standards where signum or vexillum, despite being actual standards, can be used in a much broader sense.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Based on the text from Ammianus then the Eruli and Batavians carried a Vexillum - although as I found in my study on this topic, we have to be careful using literary evidence for "technical" Roman military issues. Often authors use general language or insert one 'catch-all' term that is not precise. For example Greek writers often use Doryphoros to describe bodyguard units without saying whether they are Praetorians or Equites etc etc.

The same can be true with military standards where signum or vexillum, despite being actual standards, can be used in a much broader sense.

I think we're on fairly solid ground by assuming that the units Ammianus mentions are the Seniores rather than the Iuniores, he tends only to mention the Seniores units in his works, or Palatine ones, Scholae units etc.

We know from Vegetius that Legiones may well have had the usual standards from the earlier imperial period, plus a draco standard. Not entirely clear as to the what the auxilia would have had but I'm willing to state that they would have had a vexillia standard plus a draco for each unit.

The passage in question states that both units shared a single standard, and that this standard was recovered at some later stage after what appears to be a number of battles.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Adrian,

I think we're on fairly solid ground by assuming that the units Ammianus mentions are the Seniores rather than the Iuniores, he tends only to mention the Seniores units in his works, or Palatine ones, Scholae units etc.

I doubt that these units were then even split up into seniores and iuniores yet.

We know from Vegetius that Legiones may well have had the usual standards from the earlier imperial period, plus a draco standard. Not entirely clear as to the what the auxilia would have had but I'm willing to state that they would have had a vexillia standard plus a draco for each unit.

Agreed.

The passage in question states that both units shared a single standard, and that this standard was recovered at some later stage after what appears to be a number of battles.

We've discussed this before. Although they shared a standard, they may well have had a standard for their own unit as well.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Hi Adrian,

I think we're on fairly solid ground by assuming that the units Ammianus mentions are the Seniores rather than the Iuniores, he tends only to mention the Seniores units in his works, or Palatine ones, Scholae units etc.

I doubt that these units were then even split up into seniores and iuniores yet.

The split into the Seniores and Iuniores divisions happened sometime between the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine I (although I believe there is some evidence of this possibly happening during the 3rd Century). Whilst historians upto fairly recent times put the date of the division after 364AD when Valentinian I divided the empire between himself and his brother Valens, we now know from archeological and literary evidence it happened earlier.

[Robert Vermaat]

I doubt that these units were then even split up into seniores and iuniores yet.

The split into the Seniores and Iuniores divisions happened sometime between the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine I (although I believe there is some evidence of this possibly happening during the 3rd Century). Whilst historians upto fairly recent times put the date of the division after 364AD when Valentinian I divided the empire between himself and his brother Valens, we now know from archeological and literary evidence it happened earlier.

If we get into this much deeper we should open a new thread (or link up to an existing one), but I don't think that anyone thinks any longer that there was one moment when this occurred (as Hoffmann once advocated). Some units were indeed split into seniores and iuniores at an earlier date, and some weren't. The Heruli and Batavians are not reported as being split at any time before c. 360 (I think!), and I therefore think that Ammianus knew them both as one unit paired together. It's dangerous to suppose that he only wrote about seniores units and did not mention that name. I think that most of the field army was split between Valens and Valentinian (but, as written above, this was not the first occasion for seniores/iuniores splits), and that the palatini units were split around that time as well.

[Tony Riches]

I doubt that these units were then even split up into seniores and iuniores yet.

The split into the Seniores and Iuniores divisions happened sometime between the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine I (although I believe there is some evidence of this possibly happening during the 3rd Century). Whilst historians upto fairly recent times put the date of the division after 364AD when Valentinian I divided the empire between himself and his brother Valens, we now know from archeological and literary evidence it happened earlier.

If we get into this much deeper we should open a new thread (or link up to an existing one), but I don't think that anyone thinks any longer that there was one moment when this occurred (as Hoffmann once advocated). Some units were indeed split into seniores and iuniores at an earlier date, and some weren't. The Heruli and Batavians are not reported as being split at any time before c. 360 (I think!), and I therefore think that Ammianus knew them both as one unit paired together. It's dangerous to suppose that he only wrote about seniores units and did not mention that name. I think that most of the field army was split between Valens and Valentinian (but, as written above, this was not the first occasion for seniores/iuniores splits), and that the palatini units were split around that time as well.

This is probably the right point to thank all concerned, especially Adrian (as is often the case) for prompt, informative and useful replies to my ill educated questions. Much appreciated. My publisher is now mulling the information gleaned, and working out how to balance realism with commercial reality (as usual). We shall see what results. The book jackets so far have been great at jumping off the shelf, which is the aim, so you won't find me complaining. By the way, RAT gets a big name check in the acknowledgements for book 3, which I somewhat guiltily feel is rather overdue. Thanks all, always informative and usually entertaining too!