At least from the archaic Greek period ... - The Roman Recruit



The Notitia Dignitatum: Shield forms and shield Designs

Seen from a Different Perspective

by Christian Koepfer, MA

Shield devices – a brief overview

At least from the archaic Greek period onwards shield devices, decorations and emblems were common.[1] However, it seems quite probable that they were already in use much earlier, as metal shields from the early Bronze Age suggest.[2] A shield device can have several functions. First, if they are basically similar among several soldiers, it can identify a group of soldiers as a unit within an army. (If different forms of shields were used in an army this might also apply for shield forms.) At the same time, uniform devices must have helped to distinguish soldiers between opposing armies, if whole armies had the same shield device. Second, it can confer a certain meaning, which may be significant for the individual soldier or for the soldier’s opponent. Such devices could be intended to be apotropaic, magical, or religious symbols, intended to indicate rank, or to refer to the personal attributes of its bearer. Third, the shield device can simply be a decoration, often following cultural conditions.[3]

In ancient Greek Armies individualized devices were used. However, in some cases the armies showed the symbol of their city on the shields, as, for example, the Spartans did. [4] The Army of Alexander the Great and later Hellenistic armies usually had the eight-pointed star as shield symbol. This symbol was probably the “coat of arms” of the Macedonian Kings.[5] The symbol remained popular in the eastern Empire until the middle ages.[6]

The only surviving shield devices for the earliest segment of the period discussed, derive from Dura Europos and date to ca. 260 AD. These shields show mainly mythical scenes and figures.

After ca. 400 AD a precious source for shield devices of the late Roman army is the Notitia Dignitatum. Unfortunately it is an extremely difficult source, to date in total or in parts and in regard of depicted details of military items.[7] To explore the shield devices, their meanings, and all cross-reference, would be a very major task, and is not what I am going to do now.

Other known late Roman shields are the three shields which are now in Trier. These show figural scenes similar to the Dura-Europos shields, and one of them shows a geometric design in form of the Macedonian Star.[8]

In early Germanic epics a distinction in color can be seen between red shields for war (“Heerschild”) which were red, and shields for peace (“Friedeschild”) which were white.[9] Among the Frisians brown shields seem to have the same function as red ones. Such distinction may simply reflect a literary and stylistic device. For example, in Old English “brown” refers not to a pure color but to what we would consider reddish-brown.[10] Whatever the case, it seems quite improbable that each soldier carried two shields around all the time. If different colors were actually used, the shields were perhaps employed as “heralds” of the armies to signal their intention towards the enemy in order to avoid unwanted war.

Uniformity of Shield Devices

As the sources suggest, the modern understanding of uniformity was not a feature of armies in Late Antiquity.[11] I will also argue in the following that - in regard of the source material currently available - for the whole of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages shield devices were usually not uniform within military units.

The materials found at Dura Europos suggest that in the army of the later Roman Empire the basic shield color may have been identical within units, but not the shield decoration. But a picture for the entire army cannot be gained for this section of the era discussed, and until new evidence is found this question must remain unanswered.

The Notitia Dignitatum (CNH) suggests, as we have seen, that the late Roman army from at least the beginning of the 5th century AD had specific shield devices and colors for each unit. Two major positions concerning the shields displayed in the CNH are currently under discussion among historians. The first position, established by Grigg,[12] states that the shields contemporary to the CNH must have been of Type I,[13] for the cross-reference with other sources shows primarily Type I shields, and that the shield devices depicted in the CNH were “ad hoc fabrications” by the book illustrators.[14] The second position, advocated by Speidel,[15] on the contrary, argues that the shields contemporary to the CNH were rather of Type II and that the shield devices were actually all used, and that this becomes clear from cross-referencing them to shields displayed on contemporary monuments.

In my opinion both theories equally have right and wrong arguments. It is a proven fact[16] that some of the shield designs were actually used by the units the CNH displays for them. Shield devices that are similarly displayed elsewhere can also be regarded as “authentic”. But we cannot find out whether these shield devices were actually used among all units of the late Roman army, since so far we have discovered too few originals. Most of the other sources contemporary to the CNH depict shields of Type I (see Pictures 1-4) not of Type II see Picture 5, as the CNH does.

[pic][17]

Picture 1: On the left two soldiers depicted on the Column of Theodosius in Istanbul. Late 4th Century AD.

[pic][18] [pic][19][pic][20]

Picture 2: 6th Century ivory from Egypt.

Picture 3: Depiction of General Stilicho in Monza, Italy. Around 400AD

Picture 4: Mosaic depicting Emperor Justinian and his officials. Left section

showing two decorated Soldiers. The green left shield has a chi-rho, the red right one probably a star. Ravenna, Italy. 6th Century AD.

[pic][21]

Picture 5: Wood carving depicting Roman garrison troops defending a town.

Egypt, 5th century.

This might have two explanations. First, the medieval copyist was only familiar with shields of Type II, because they were still and exclusively used in his times. Type II shields are still seen on the Bayeux Tapestry. He therefore “corrected” their forms. This happened with other objects displayed in the CNH, for example with helmets. Second, they were “ad hoc fabrications”, as Grigg argues, but not because a circle is easier to draw than an oval.[22] I would say that either the ancient creator(s) of the manuscript or the medieval copyist(s) subconsciously applied to their depiction the “law of Prägnanz” (Gute Gestalt). That is, they had to display a series of formally identical objects that would have been subject to the “law of proximity”. These laws of the Gestalt theory say that

I. Human beings try to experience things in as good a Gestalt as possible.

II. Human minds group regional or chronological closeness of elements and see them as belonging together.

So human beings tend to apply “ideal” forms to a visual system they create. In this case the ideal form for the shields would have been a circle.[23] To summarize these thoughts on the CNH: The late Roman army deployed equally Type I and Type II shields. The CNH depicts only shields of Type II. However, cross-referencing confirms the use of both shield types in numbers favoring Type I. The shield devices displayed in the CNH can sometimes be connected through cross-references to the units named for them in the CNH; however, this tells us nothing about how widespread the use of the shield emblems depicted in the CNH was in reality, or whether all troops actually used the shield devices accorded to them in this text.

The three shields from the Eastern Empire now in Trier cannot help in this matter either, since their provenience is unclear. They might be from the same unit or they might be from different units. The pictures in the Vatican Virgil manuscript do not suggest uniformity of shield designs in the 6th century Roman Army. (Pictures 6 and 7)

We also know that in Early Carolingian armies shield devices were not uniform. The different units were distinguished by the color of their cloaks and the color or form of their helmet crests.[24] It is worth asking, whether the uniformity of shield color or shield devices was necessary or helpful for warfare during the period. At what distance were shield devices sufficiently visible to make distinctions possible? If we look at the shields from Dura Europos, it becomes clear that these devices were not distinguishable at distances of more than 50m. Similarly, even simpler devices could not be clearly recognized at distances more than 100-150m. What is recognizable at this distance is the basic color of such shields, especially if it is uniformly used within a unit. For the enemy this would mean that he would be able to distinguish different enemy units, not necessarily a positive effect (Ammianus Marcellinus 16.12.6)[25]. For the shield carrying party it would not be of any help, for shields face towards the enemy and cannot be distinguished unless they have uniformly painted backsides. But even if the backs of the shields were so colored, this distinction would be largely covered up by the shield bearers themselves. However, Uniform shield devices could help in organizational matters, making it easier for soldiers to identify own units on the march or in camp. In this environment the shield devices could be seen and identified from very close up without any threat.

If armies of the period fought against each other, the differences between them would have been clear to the participants and everyone would have known to which side they belonged. The key for distinction is personal attire. [26] Clothing, hair style, even jewelry or deformation of the body made quite clear to which party the opposite soldier belonged. This is manifest, for example, in the illustrations in the Vatican Virgil manuscript, where for each fighting force the helmet crests are identical, but the shield colors are not. See Pictures 6 and 7.

[pic][27] [pic][28]

Pictures 6 (left) and 7 (right): Images from Virgil MSS Vat. lat. 3225 and 3867.

6th Century AD.

The same system of distinction of armies was common in the early Carolingian period.[29]

Problems occurred during civil wars, when members of the same ethnic group fought each other. Here shield devices may have been highly useful to the commanders to better distinguish their armies from the opposing side. The most famous example is probably Constantine the Great’s order before the battle at the Milvian Bridge in 312:

And not only so, but he also caused the sign of the salutary trophy to be impressed on the very shields of his soldiers; and commanded that his embattled forces should be preceded in their march, not by golden images, as heretofore, but only by the standard of the cross.[30]

Household troops could also deploy uniform shield devices. This should be seen in the context of patron-client relationships, where it was necessary for the troops to show their allegiance within an already established system of hierarchy and attire. This is the case for the companions of the Frankish King Sigismir described by Sidonius:

This equipment adorned and armed them at the same time. Barbed lances and missile axes filled their right hands; and their left sides were protected by shields, the gleam of which, golden on the central boss and silvery white around the rims, betrayed at once the wearer’s wealth and ruling passion (Sid. Ap. Epist. IV,20,3).[31]

But still Sidonius first mentions their attire as their most distinctive characteristic:

Their feet from toe to ankle were laced in hairy shoes; knees, shins, and calves were uncovered: above this was a tight-fitting many-colored garment, drawn up high, and hardly descending to their bare houghs, and sleeves covering only the upper part of the arm. They wore green mantles with crimson borders. Their swords suspended from the shoulders by overrunning baldrics pressed against sides girded with studded deer-skins. (Sid. Ap. Epist. IV, 20, 2).[32]

Summary

So far - apart from only a few units and apart from household troops - evidence cannot confirm a uniformity of shield devices in military units of the Late Roman Army. I suggest that, as with all other military equipment from the period, a certain similarity of objects within a group can be taken for granted. For helmets, swords and other objects, this similarity is mainly functional. This is also the case for shields. Only where external circumstances made a clear distinction of armies or units a necessity, and only where no other means for distinction were present or possible shield devices were likely to have been uniform among the members of a unit.

-----------------------

[1] G.H. Chase, The Shield Devices of the Greeks in Art and Literature (Cambridge. 1902) 21.

[2] These shields are discussed in: P. Schauer, „Der Rundschild der Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit“ in: Jahrbuch des Römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums in Mainz 27 (Mainz 1980) 196-248.

[3] Compare: G. H. Chase, The Shield Devices of the Ancient Greeks in Art and Literature (Cambridge, 1902) 22.

[4] V.D. Hanson, The Western Way of War (Oxford, 1989) 185-86.

[5] K. Liampi, Der makedonsiche Schild (Bonn, 1998) 43-47.

[6] K.P. Goethert, „Neue römische Prunkschilde“ in: M. Junkelmann , Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz (Mainz. 1996), 115-6. “Ornamentschild”.

[7] T.S. Burns, Barbarians within the Gates of Rome (Bloomington, Indianapolis. 1994) 98-99. 296-297, and references to literature. H. Elton: 11/16/2004.

[8] Goethert, Prunkschilde 115-126.

[9] K. Hofmann. “Schilde und ihre Farben im germanischen und besonders im alt-nordischen Alterthum”, Sitzungsberichte des Münchener Alterthums-Vereins (Munich. 1868) 76.

[10] Ibid. 80.

[11] See also: B.S. Bachrach, Early Carolingian Warfare (Philadelphia, 2001) 168-70.

[12] R. Grigg, “Inconsistancy and Lassitude: the Shield Emblems of the Notitia Dignitatum”, Journal of Roman Studies, 73 (1983) 132-42.

[13] I am using here the shield typology established in my thesis, shield type I is the round-oval shield, shield type II is the round shield.

[14] Ibid. 132.

[15] M.P. Speidel, “The Army at Aquileia, the Moesiaci Legion, and the Shield Emblems in the Notitia Dignitatum”, Saalburg-Jahrbücher, 45 (1990) 68-72.

[16] Ibid. 72.

[17] S. MacDowell and G. Embleton, Late Roman Infantryman 236-565 AD (Oxford, 1994) 18.

[18] Ibid. 56.

[19] Ibid. 26.

[20] G. Bustacchini, Ravenna – Seine Mosaiken, seine Denkmäler, seine Umgebung. Ravenna, 1984. Basilica San Vitale in Ravenna.

[21] S. MacDowell and C. Hook, Late Roman Cavalryman 236-565 AD (Oxford, 1995), 57.

[22] Grigg, “Inconsistancy and Lassitude”, 133.

[23] P. G. Zimbardo and R. J. Gerrig. Psychologie, (Berlin, 1999) 130-4.

[24] Bachrach, Carolingian Warfare, 166-170.

[25] “Alamanni enim scutorum insignia contuentes norant eos milites permisisse paucis suorum latronibus terram, quorum metu aliquotiens, cum gradum conferrent, amissis pluribus abiere dispersi. quae anxie ferebat sollicitus Caesar quod trudente ipsa necessitate digresso periculis cum paucis licet fortibus, populosis gentibus occurrere cogebatur.”

[26] Bachrach, Carolingian Warfare, 166.

[27] 16/10/2006

[28] Ibid.

[29] Bachrach, Carolingian Warfare, 169.

[30] 16/10/206

[31] W. B. Anderson, Sidonius, Poems and Letters with an English translation. 2 vols. (Cambridge and London, 1965) v.2, 139.

[32] Ibid.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download