eborius

It seems to me that the story is very complicated. The Roman army say during the invasion and conqugest of Britain comprised both elements, infantry and cavalry, working together to achieve the advance and ocupation. The infantry was composed of the Roman citizen Legions with a (probably) equal number of auxiliary troops; while the cavalry were almost all auxiliaries, recruited from peoples with a history of mounted warriors etc. It is evident from the works of Tacitus that the Romans were happy to let the auxiliaries do most of the fighting, i.e. at Mons Graupius, while the legions looked on, thus very few ROMANS were killed in gaining the victory. Legionaries were expensive, 'native' soldiers were more expendable. The Legions being heavy infantry behaved like walking 'tanks', while the auxiliary cavalry chased down and rounded up the fleeing enemy. The Legions could be called the 'terror weapon' of the period, but needed the Auxiliary cohorts and Alae to provide most of the necessary other elements to make for sucess. On occasion the balance of these various elements varied, according to availability and the requirements of a particular situation, sometimes units, whether infantry or cavalry, Legionary or Auxiliary, acted seperately, especially for instance in Britain once frontiers such as Hadrian's Wall had become established. It is likely that originally the auxiliary units were intended to act in concert with the Legions posted nearest to them, but there would not always have been time to bring, say, the Legion up from York if trouble suddenly happened as far north as the Wall. Thus the frontier garrisons would have to act alone more and more often, especially in rapid response raids far ahead of the Legions. The practice of drawing off units, or even fragments of them, in Vexilations for particular actions would also have upset anyroop original 'fixed' system. It seems that units of cavalry usually combined to opose enemy action, creating large, very mobile bodies of troops able to take swift effective action against incursions, as well as to make punitive raids into enemy territory. The slower moving Legions could be mobilised to back up as required, while the auxiliary infantry units provided a widespread occupation force, border guard and local police cum security force. All this was well underway by the time Hadrian's Wall was established, if not well before. It was not a major innovation of the Later Empire, but rather an intensification of what was already occuring. I agree with others that the influence of the Persians etc. had an effect, but the usefullness, in fact absolute necessity of an effective cavalry arm, was evident very early on. The historical fact was tha Rome developed in an area poor in cavalry made their infantry primary in the earliest expansion of their state, but they could not have gained the Empire they did with the Legions alone. One must also take into account the effects of civil wars such as those which brought Constantine to supreme power. His victory at the Milvian Bridge was much credited to his cavalry troops. Such actions would promote this arm at the expense of the infantry. Also the removal of the distinction between citizen and none-citizen will have reduced the cudos of the Legions, while the cavalry through all ages has retained an elan of superiority over the infantry. Thus I would maintain that the 'progress' towards the 'medieval knight' was well under way even in the early days of the Roman Empire, it did not need many of the stated later Roman period developments to initiate it, merely to continue it.

It seems to me that the story is very complicated. The Roman army say during the invasion and conqugest of Britain comprised both elements, infantry and cavalry, working together to achieve the advance and ocupation. The infantry was composed of the Roman citizen Legions with a (probably) equal number of auxiliary troops; while the cavalry were almost all auxiliaries, recruited from peoples with a history of mounted warriors etc. It is evident from the works of Tacitus that the Romans were happy to let the auxiliaries do most of the fighting, i.e. at Mons Graupius, while the legions looked on, thus very few ROMANS were killed in gaining the victory. Legionaries were expensive, 'native' soldiers were more expendable. The Legions being heavy infantry behaved like walking 'tanks', while the auxiliary cavalry chased down and rounded up the fleeing enemy. The Legions could be called the 'terror weapon' of the period, but needed the Auxiliary cohorts and Alae to provide most of the necessary other elements to make for sucess. On occasion the balance of these various elements varied, according to availability and the requirements of a particular situation, sometimes units, whether infantry or cavalry, Legionary or Auxiliary, acted seperately, especially for instance in Britain once frontiers such as Hadrian's Wall had become established. It is likely that originally the auxiliary units were intended to act in concert with the Legions posted nearest to them, but there would not always have been time to bring, say, the Legion up from York if trouble suddenly happened as far north as the Wall. Thus the frontier garrisons would have to act alone more and more often, especially in rapid response raids far ahead of the Legions. The practice of drawing off units, or even fragments of them, in Vexilations for particular actions would also have upset anyroop original 'fixed' system. It seems that units of cavalry usually combined to opose enemy action, creating large, very mobile bodies of troops able to take swift effective action against incursions, as well as to make punitive raids into enemy territory. The slower moving Legions could be mobilised to back up as required, while the auxiliary infantry units provided a widespread occupation force, border guard and local police cum security force. All this was well underway by the time Hadrian's Wall was established, if not well before. It was not a major innovation of the Later Empire, but rather an intensification of what was already occuring. I agree with others that the influence of the Persians etc. had an effect, but the usefullness, in fact absolute necessity of an effective cavalry arm, was evident very early on. The historical fact was tha Rome developed in an area poor in cavalry made their infantry primary in the earliest expansion of their state, but they could not have gained the Empire they did with the Legions alone. One must also take into account the effects of civil wars such as those which brought Constantine to supreme power. His victory at the Milvian Bridge was much credited to his cavalry troops. Such actions would promote this arm at the expense of the infantry. Also the removal of the distinction between citizen and none-citizen will have reduced the cudos of the Legions, while the cavalry through all ages has retained an elan of superiority over the infantry. Thus I would maintain that the 'progress' towards the 'medieval knight' was well under way even in the early days of the Roman Empire, it did not need many of the stated later Roman period developments to initiate it, merely to continue it.

This may help you a little. High officials of the Empire, Provincial governers etc. had personal bodyguards drafted to them from regional Roman forces. For example Neratius Marcellus, Governer of Britain cerca. 100 AD. in Vindolanda letters has troops assigned from Batavian & Tungrian Cohorts stationed at that fort. These bodyguards would be classed as 'protectores singulares' (centuries later there were permenant units with this title). These would be cavalry and auxiliaries, very unlikely to be legionaries. It is also most unlikely that they would have been from one of the local populations, so not Jewish or Samaritan. Idumenean (Arab) auxiliaries are a pssibility. None of these could have Roman citizanship while serving (though their officers could have been)but would gain that status after discharge. The pilum was not the only spear type used by the Roman army, there were several types of 'lancea' also. I have excavated several lance-heads in Roman forts in Britain. Such lances would have be used by cavalry, as the pilum was an infantry weapon, used as a javelin, for throwing, NOT as a stabbing spear. Longer thrusting spears would be needed by cavalry, similar to the Greek 'contos'. Such a longer weapon is perhaps more likely for the lance that 'pierced Jesus side' if he was high up on a cross. At the time of the cruxifiction, around the Jewish Passover festival Jerusalem would have been packed with pilgrims (as later at the outbreak of the first Revolt) and seething with potential trouble-makers. As the Roman governer, and King Herod would have to be there during the festival, troops would have been required to help maintain order, as well guard these important persons. The Temple seems to have had a Jewish guard ot 'police force', who may have been the ones who arrested Jesus, but it seems that a 'Roman' force did the execution and possibly guarded the tomb (though they would bhave been in dire trouble for falling asleep on the job! It is to be noted that Saint Paul travelled some few years later to Italy with members of the 'Gallic, or Itallic Cohort', in Acts. This indicates an auxiliary unit which must have been serving in Palestine during the period. Hope this gives you some pointers, or prevents you making errors. Good luck.

The Plutarch quote about the Parthians supports an eastern origin & employment of 'drum-like' noise making instruments, the main purpose of which, as with the later kettle-drums, was to intimidate an enemy. The 'with bells attached' bit still raises doubts as to what form these might have taken. Would fully developed drums require the addition of bells? Still, the instruments may have led to the 'tympany' of the later Roman-Byzantines. However, as I commented last time, what was available in Byzantium in the 5th-56th-7th centuries did not have to be around for the Romans of the 1st-2nd-3rd centuries. Many organisational changes during the Roman imperial centuries. The Emperors of the High Empire, say Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius, would hardly recognise the armies of Justinian or Heraclius, for instance, as Roman, if they had been able to travel into the future. commentators sometimes tend to telescope past times too much together, not allowing for the significant changes which occur over generations. Again, items that may appear in literary circles, i.e. in elitist Greek/Roman, need not have been widely known to the general population. I still submit that 'drums' as we would recognise the term DID NOT EXIST in the Roman, or Greek, world, and were not employed by the Legions or any part of the Roman army, OR THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE WIDESPREAD AND OBVIOUS ON THE MONUMENTS. Special pleading to suggest their use, using flimsy and unsure 'evidence' is not convincing!

The Plutarch quote about the Parthians supports an eastern origin & employment of 'drum-like' noise making instruments, the main purpose of which, as with the later kettle-drums, was to intimidate an enemy. The 'with bells attached' bit still raises doubts as to what form these might have taken. Would fully developed drums require the addition of bells? Still, the instruments may have led to the 'tympany' of the later Roman-Byzantines. However, as I commented last time, what was available in Byzantium in the 5th-56th-7th centuries did not have to be around for the Romans of the 1st-2nd-3rd centuries. Many organisational changes during the Roman imperial centuries. The Emperors of the High Empire, say Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius, would hardly recognise the armies of Justinian or Heraclius, for instance, as Roman, if they had been able to travel into the future. commentators sometimes tend to telescope past times too much together, not allowing for the significant changes which occur over generations. Again, items that may appear in literary circles, i.e. in elitist Greek/Roman, need not have been widely known to the general population. I still submit that 'drums' as we would recognise the term DID NOT EXIST in the Roman, or Greek, world, and were not employed by the Legions or any part of the Roman army, OR THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE WIDESPREAD AND OBVIOUS ON THE MONUMENTS. Special pleading to suggest their use, using flimsy and unsure 'evidence' is not convincing!

Thanks Melvadius for the Dionysus passage, but again this is a Greek story and seems to suggest the Greeks adopting Indian ways, probably through the use of Indian allies against other Indian states, rather than the Greeks themselves adopting drums and cymbals. Certainly the passage shows that this was a strange & unusual thing, likely seen by Greeks as the adoption of 'barbarian' ways and therefore quoted as a criticism. Such instruments may well have been a normal part of ritual & military equipment, and maybe such things came to the west from there, but it was long after the Greek or Roman period if it was so. Therefore the story is hardly relevent. Again I say that the vast majority of the evidence, or total lack of such, is that the drum was not employed in the Classical world, because it was; except in such novelty stories such as the one quoted; unknown, & certainly not employed by the Roman army. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence archaeological maxim is NOT apposite to this case, for the TOTAL none representation of recognisable drums on the military monuments tells ABSOLUTELY that such drums DID NOT EXIST as far as Rome is concerned. As for the Byzantine 'tympanarius', the date of such would be useful, as the Roman army was VERY different thing by the period we call Byzantine from what it had been at the period of Empire-building, & certainly changes in gear, and nomenclature, had taken place. So we cannot assume that what was available say in 10th century C.E. Byzantium; when contact with Seljuk armies may have made drums, for instance, familiar, and possibly even employed by Romans; was similarly the case many centuries earlier, against all the contrary evidence.

Thanks to parthianbow in remarks on ships. Yes timebeater does not mean drummer. I would contend that 'tympany', especially `tamborine' types are nor certainly represented in ancient artworks, but what are shown seem much more like castenets, in any case of little or no use for military purposes. Remember these are 'civilian' scenes, likely Greek and theatrical. Leucippus also is probably not relevent, as he was a Greek not a Roman, and the columns of temples etc. were composed of 'drum' shaped sections, is one SURE it is to an instrument he was comparing the world, or does the greek really refer to the columnar shape instead. I am sure this must have been the case, for I still aver that IF fully developed skined drums had been known in the ancient world, and only such can be really named drums, there would be abundant pictorial evidence, and as this it TOTALLY ABSENT, then undoubtably this means drums as we understand them must have been unknown in the Greek world, and the Roman empire. The speculative interpretation of the Carlisle items etc. as drums does not figure, as these things cannot be proved to be instruments, they were more likely water or wine containers or somesuch, to call them drums is against ALL other evidence. Bands are depicted in amphitheatre scenes, including wind/water organs, surely drums would have been well employed for the Games, again I say they are NOT seen, so DID NOT EXIST. I think drums have a far eastern origin, and only appeared in the west with the Seljuk Turks in the 9th-10th century.

Hi, this is Eborius again. I must respond to the remarks on tamborines. It is extremely speculative to interpret the mosaics as fully skinned drums like the Irish instrument. Moreover these mosaics at Pompeii most famously, are most likey versions of earlier Greek pictures, so may not show Roman street life at all, but possibly merely theatrical scenes. To take such poor indicators & extend them to suggest fully skinned drum use in ANY part of the classical world is going far beyond their value. To then take this, along with some archaeological fragments that may have been mis-interpreted, as evidence for the use of drums in the Roman military is to go much beyond the evidence. I reassert that IF such drums had played any part in the Roman world, especially the military, depictions of them would be all over the monuments, i.e. Trajan's column & the numerous arches & trophies & tombstones, just as they are when they truly became a part of the European military, from the 16th-17th centuries!

Well there is evidence given by several classical archaeologists put forth in the classical journal Britannia where they speculate on two finds at two Roman army digs. These were found along with saddle and shield covers at the Flavian army site near Carlisle with a very similar cover (suggesting some commonality of design) found at a site in The Netherlands (Vechten). They were made for double-sided drums rather than the 'drummer boy' type. Two similar items found in two Roman military camps suggest they were used by some legions at some time but of course don't give up for what. I think the Britannia issue is from the 90s, I have it somewhere. Eborius replies: I do not know the evidence of 'Britannia' journal you mention, but would question the interpretation of finds as military drums, given the overwealming anti-evidence. The `tamborines' of mosaics belong to street performers and have no relavence for military affairs. Drums as we are familia with them in the warfare seem only to have come to the ken of the western world in the crusader period, and were associated with the Seljuks. It is probable that these decsended from earlier times, possibly from further east, China perhaps. Again if these had been in use by the Persians or Parthian enemies of Rome, this would had been noted by the classical sources, & surely have been adopted by the Roman army. As this did clearly not occur, I maintain that such instruments seem not to be employed by the Romans, indeed the Roman world seems totally unaware of them. The examples quoted by the journal would have to be `prooved' to have been drums, rather than buckets or similar, to outweigh the negative evidence, and to interpret them as such, and use this as evidence for the use of drums in the Legions etc. is surely extremely speculative. As an archaeologist myself I am aware just how difficult it can be to identify the purpose of site finds, especially when they are fragmentary, decayed and unique or nearly so. One is always desirous to allot a use to the found objects, and so may make speculative interpretations on slight evidence. I would still say that if drums had indeed been in use by the Roman army at any time there would be unambiguous evidence for them, in the classical writers & among the numerous military monuments, trophies etc. That there are NO such traces speaks most tellingly against even the knowledge of such things, & most strongly against their use .

Hi, this is Eborius. I have just discovered this site, and noted a remark asking about the use of drums etc. for signalling in the Roman Army. Though regularly shown in Hollywood epics, including the suposedly well-researched `Gladiator`, there is NO evidence for the use of drums ANYWHERE in the Roman world. There is no rank or title for a drummer recorded, nor are there any depictions, i.e. on Trajan's column where they surely aught to be present if such existed, nor on any of the numerous military tombstones or other monuments. Therefore it is clear that ALL signals during battles etc. had to have been transmitted via the well evidenced varoius wind instruments, which in any case were much more capable than any drums at complicated signals.