|
|
|
|
|
Auxiliary swords worn on the left. (Peronis
2007)
|
|
 |
| |
There has been a lot of discussion between our
auxiliary members recently, regarding the wearing of swords
on the left. Traditionally it is thought to have been a reserve
of the Centurionate ranks and higher. I have been looking at
evidence that some auxiliaries may have also worn their
swords on the left. Concentrating on two main sources, namely
the Tropeum Traiani (Adamklissi, Romania) and Trajan's Column
at Rome
The Centurionate
Numerous tombstone reliefs show centurions
with their swords being worn on the left. The Adamklissi Monument,
or Tropaeum Traiani (dating from the reign of the emperor
Trajan) depicts two centuriones (One with his vine stick)
in undress order wearing their scabbards on the left. Another,
second metope shows what at first glance also appear to be centuriones
but this time both carrying what look to be scrolls. Again
the sword hangs on the left side. Could the latter actually
be auxiliary soldiers? They wear the traditional Sagum of
the auxilia (as seen on Trajan's Column) as opposed to the
paenula
|
| |
 |
|
| |
Standard Bearers
The monument also shows images of standard
bearers. Two distinct types can be seen. The officers on the
left, all wearing mail, both signifier and two vexillarii,
wear their cloaks slung back over their shoulders and have
their swords on the right side. The two vexillarii on the
right have a different appearance with no armour, different
cloaks (worn 'barbarian' fashion, and tunics. It is possible
that they are wearing their swords on the left as they
are not visible on the right.
|
| |
What of the regular auxiliary troops?
Let's look at evidence for auxiliary soldiers wearing their
swords on the left. Continuing with the reliefs of the Adamklissi
monument, there are metopes of auxiliary soldiers, many of
cavalrymen and another of three auxiliary infantrymen showing
baldrics slung over the right shoulder.
The first example is Metope 14.
It clearly shows three soldiers with mail shirts carrying
oval clipeus-type shields (Legionaries on the monument
are all depicted with curved rectangular scuta) wearing
their scabbards on the left side. The three soldiers advance
towards the right with swords drawn. A midrib is depicted
on the swords. They wear helmets with deep neck guards and
thigh-length, short-sleeved, mail shirts over short tunicae
and no pteruges. (Typical of the auxiliary soldiers
depicted on Trajan's Column). Also just visible are the bottom
hem of their femenalia. They all have baldrics over
their right shoulders, with the mouths of their scabbards
visible under their left arms. They do not appear to have
any belts (again, like the auxiliaries on Trajan's Column).
The soldiers may also have been from a part-mounted cohors
equitata, which may explain the wearing of the sword high
up on the left. (I'll discuss why during the examination of
metope 1).
|
| |
The question was raised, "Are the 'baldrics' actually shield
straps?" (The shields do appear quite high on the bodies).
Well, if this was the case, then there is no other apparent
method for securing the scabbard to the soldier. There are no
belts visible on the relief. Also why would the soldiers be
marching with swords drawn?
Another point raised was with regard to the
scabbards being too high under the arm of the soldier. I have
experimented with a baldric fitted for wearing on the left
and I tried adopting battle stance with shield etc with the
sword suspended at various heights to see how much harder
it would be to draw from the left with a raised shield. There
was no difference in the difficulty of unsheathing it from
any height.
There is another point to be mentioned regarding
the height of the scabbard in relation to the second auxiliary
example from the Adamklissi monument.
Metope 1
above shows a mounted cavalryman wielding a lancea/hasta
who also has his sword slung on the left with no other visible
means of supporting a scabbard, such as a belt. The pommel
of the sword is depicted under the soldiers left arm.
Having ridden in Roman cavalry equipment
a little, I can see why this would be practical. If you were
holding your lance, the sword would be well out of the way
of your primary weapon arm hanging as it is depicted here,
on the left. The scabbard on the metope is also slung VERY
high, almost under the armpit. This is also how it is depicted
on the cavalry troops on the friezes of the Arch of Constantine
at Rome. I raised this question with a trained military cavalryman
and also with another cavalry expert and both stated that
if your sword hangs too low, it would smack the rump of the
horse in effect 'geeing-it-up'. If you are pulling up on the
reins to slow the horse down, the animal gets very confused,
as it is still being tapped on the backside by the scabbard,
making it think it should go faster!
Having the sword tucked up under the 'static'
left arm holding the reins and shield, this will not happen,
and why I think the three soldiers on foot from metope 14
with their scabbards very high under the left arm may be dismounted
troops from a cohors equitata.
Other depictions from the monument with cavalry
wearing their baldric and scabbards on the left are as follows:
|
| |
 |
|
| |
Studying the depictions on the Adamklissi monument, it appears
that we have sculptural reliefs of auxiliary soldiers, both
infantry and cavalry, clearly showing the wearing of scabbards
on the left hand side. As these examples show the soldiers facing
to the right there is always the possibility that, whoever did
the carving, couldn't be bothered to undertake the time consuming
detail required to reproduce the scabbard on the right face.
However, this can be discounted by the fact that all of the
other Metopes do have this detailing, and more. Are we actually
seeing a first-hand account that some regular auxiliary troops
wore their swords on the left?
Trajan's Column
As mentioned previously, most of our reconstructions
are based on the reliefs shown on Trajan's Column. Virtually
all of the scenes that feature auxiliary troops depict the
wearing of the sword on the right hand side. However, there
is one particular scene showing auxiliary soldiers defending
their fort from a Dacian attack, and all of the soldiers
that have their baldrics visible are clearly wearing their
swords on the left side. At first I thought that the image
had been produced in reverse, but after double-checking against
others it is not. As you can see, the shields are being held
'normal fashion', in the left hand.
|
| |
A scene from Trajan's Column |
|
| |
The last example is from a tomb
relief in the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. It is from
an early second century context and shows two soldiers, each
in mail with shoulder doubling and pteruges, carrying oval clipeus-type
shields. Clearly the baldrics are suspending the scabbard on
the left. Although the soldiers could possibly represent centuriones,
the crest type is certainly not of the transverse type. |
| |
In the writings of Josephus
we find;
' The infantry are armed with breastplate
and helmet and carry a blade on each side; of these by far
the longer is the one on the left,
1. the other being
no more than nine inches long.' p. 196 in the Penguin
classics translated by G.A.Williamson, revised by E.M.Smallwood.
1.However,
Josephus could have been looking face-on to the soldiers,
so the regular wearing of the sword on the right, would appear
to be on 'his' left.
Josephus does not tell us whether the
soldiers are auxiliaries or legionaries. If they were auxiliaries,
then that would match well with the Adamklissi metopes. Tacitus,
having described the legions, then says that he will not describe
the auxilia because the auxilia present such complexity and
variety that he cannot afford to devote the necessary space
to the subject. He does however say that the auxilia retain
their native arms.2
It is worth noting that Tacitus was actually
writing at about the same time Trajan was campaigning in Dacia
so we may be seeing in the Adamklissi metopes some of the
variety he was referring to.
2 This is supported by a building
stone of the First Aelian Cohort of Dacians, showing a Dacian
falx on its face. (RIB 1914, from Birdoswald, in the Newcastle
Museum of Antiquities.)
|
| |
Most impressions (including
re-enactors) of the Roman auxiliary soldier are generally derived
either from Trajan's Column or from the Rhineland tombstones,
and it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that either
one represents the 'true' picture, whereas the probability is
that the Rhineland tombstones show the reality of the soldiers
based in the Rhineland and Britain during the mid 1st century
AD, but not necessarily everywhere else, and that Trajan's Column
is the impression sixty years later by a series of artists who
may never have seen the real thing, but did have access to sketches
drawn by someone who had, in a completely different area of
the empire.
This raises the question whether wearing the
scabbard on the left could possibly a 'unit identifier'?
What if certain units, perhaps elite troops, were selected
to perform certain tasks, (such specialist troops could have
included exploratores, frumentarii or speculatores)
and, as a badge of their particular unit, they wore their
swords on the left to distinguish them from regular units.
We know that this 'unit pride' in the dress of a particular
corps or regiment still exists today within the modern armed
forces. Looking at the shield blazons on the example from
Trajan's Column, it would appear that all the shields are
different. One would naturally assume that if the soldiers
were all from the same unit, they would possibly all carry
the same shield design. This could be discounted by the fact
that the artists producing the monument were unaware of unit
identifiers, or that it would be more aesthetically pleasing
to show variation in designs. It could also be explained by
the artist trying to show all of the units that were actually
there at the time. Each shield representing a specific cohort
perhaps?
Conclusions.
We cannot say that many ordinary soldiers wore
their swords on the left, but that the evidence clearly shows
that some did, including regular auxiliary soldiers. Although
few in number, there appear to be enough examples of sculptural
evidence to back up Josephus' writings and as such, it is
presented for further discussion.
|
|
|
