Horrible History Costume: The ‘Hollywood’ Toga

Introduction  What follows was inspired by a @HistoryFilmClub tweet shown right. Like many who responded, naming just one historical inaccuracy in a film or TV show proved far too difficult. Sadly, and contrary to the claims of directors, producers, costume designers et al., far too many historically themed media productions are beset with inaccuracies. Not wishing to be unreasonably critical, we thought there was an opportunity to highlight some of the more common errors and then counter them with whatever historical evidence exists. In this way we hope to learn something, but there are some caveats to be born in mind:

•  We know films and TV dramas are fictional, whether they claim to be ‘based on true events’ or not. Yet that does not always excuse the liberties taken with characters, timelines, locations, costume, technology, props, action sequences (especially fight scenes), and a whole lot more.

•  That said, ‘errors’ are clearly excusable if a production is rooted in the fantasy genre, is not claiming 100% historical accuracy, or is not a factual documentary.

•  However, where inaccuracies appear, especially in historical documentaries, we think it only fair to point them out because they mislead the audience.

•  And finally. we are well aware from our experience advising filmmakers and from being on set that liberties are sometimes taken due to production constraints.

The ‘Hollywood’ toga  So, with that in mind, what can we ‘learn from mistakes’ with depictions of Roman toga? Firstly, togae (Latin: sing. toga) were only worn by adult male Roman citizens. That said, in our post ‘Horrible History Costume: Hair’ it was noted that prostitutes and women who had forfeited the title of matron, usually through adulterous behaviour, were required by Roman law to wear one (Kittell-Queller, 2014). No respectable Roman woman, therefore, would ever wear a toga.

Sadly, this does not seem to worry film and television costume departments where one will frequently encounter the ‘Hollywood’ toga. This garment is essentially a sash draped over one shoulder and around the actor or actress’ body. There is no historical precedent that we are aware of in any contemporary imagery or description for these sashes. By contrast, the Roman toga was a very specific item of clothing (you can read more about this distinctive garment here). It was invariably made of wool cloth of varying sizes up to six metres (about 20 feet) in length. It was generally worn over a tunic with draped folds over the left shoulder and the excess material wrapped round the body in a swag. After the 2nd century BC, the toga was worn almost exclusively by men and as already mentioned, only by Roman citizens.

It is true that togae were draped over one shoulder and wrapped about the body, but that is where the similarity between an accurate Roman toga and the ‘Hollywood sash’ ends. The latter can only be described as a thing favoured by lazy costume designers. What is more these sashes may have given impetus to the idea that togae can be easily slipped on or off. Having worn a recreated toga, the author can attest that help is definitely needed to don one and achieve the proper drapery.

Donning a Toga  Wearing a toga will be quite possibly a very alien concept for people used to modern tailored clothing. Being swathed in metres of material all precisely and properly draped with the left arm and, occasionally, hand dedicated to supporting the voluminous garment, and being restricted to walking in short, measured steps, requires practice. The toga was impractical day wear needing constant adjustment to preserve the correct draped form and stop it simply falling off. Perhaps surprisingly, considering its iconic status, most Roman men did not like wearing the toga as it was hot, heavy and uncomfortable. A full toga cannot be simply 'slipped' on but takes a great deal of preparation and the assistance of at least one, preferably two other people to help the wearer dress.

The evidence for precisely how ancient Romans donned their togas does not survive, however. Consequently, those seeking to recreate the look today have had to experiment with the most effective way of doing so. The resulting ‘complexity’ may well explain why costume designers and actors are content to stick with the ‘Hollywood sash’ but, for the sake of accuracy, the following guidance is offered to assistants charged with dressing a toga wearer:

1.  The wearer stands erect with their arms extended laterally at shoulder height in a cruciform stance. Other than holding a fold or slowly rotating when instructed, there is little else for the wearer to do.

2.  The toga is prepared for donning by gathering the folds, which are then placed, from behind the wearer, over their left shoulder. The folds should be uppermost and hang down the wearer’s front, with the bottom edge reaching to the level of the knee or mid-calf. The folds should be adjusted as required to drape properly. The wearer can assist by bending his left arm at the elbow and gripping the material in place.

3.  Keeping the folds together, drape the material down the wearer’s back, looping up under their right arm, across the chest (the wearer’s left hand must be out of the way) and once again over the left shoulder. The depth of the swag will depend on how long and full the toga has been made. Tucking the material into a belt may help the draping on the wearer’s right side. Depending on the available space it may be advantageous to get the wearer to perform a slow quarter or half turn to the right.

4.  If the toga is particularly long, the remaining material should be passed over the right shoulder (from back to front) and under the right forearm to cradle the arm in a sling before again passing over the left arm or shoulder. Alternatively, excess material may be tucked beneath and into the folds created by the first pass across the body.

And finally…This has either been a rant on some pet peeves with media representations of historical themes or food for thought. Regardless, thank you for reading this far. Until next time, bon appétit.

References:

Kittell-Queller, E., (2014), ‘Matrons in Ancient Rome’, available online (accessed May 26th, 2022).

Sebesta, J.L. & Bonfante, L. (eds), (2001), ‘The World of Roman Costume’, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

Dispelling Some Myths: Who built the pyramids?

One of the more enduring popular ‘myths’ is the idea that the great pyramids at Giza in northern Egypt were constructed (c. 2575 - c. 2465 BC) by a vast army of maltreated slaves. How this falsehood has flourished for centuries and even transformed popular perceptions of a historical event can be laid firmly at the feet of Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484 - c. 420 BC). Although considered to be the ‘father of history’, Herodotus was responsible for passing on a number of dubious ‘facts’. The ‘pyramids built by slaves’ is one such.

Herodotus' tale  In Book II of his Histories, Herodotus tells us that in building the Great Pyramid the pharaoh Khufu (called Cheops by the Greeks) ‘brought the people to utter misery’ having ‘compelled all the Egyptians to work for him…in gangs of a hundred thousand men, each gang for three months’ to build a pyramid ‘20 years in the making’ (Histories, Book II, 124). While it is true that slavery certainly existed in Pharaonic Egypt, as it has in nearly all cultures and civilisations both ancient and modern, its study has been complicated by the terminology the ancient Egyptians themselves used in referring to different classes of servitude throughout Egypt’s long history. However, by interpreting the evidence from just the commonly used words suggests there was three types of enslavement in ancient Egypt: chattel slavery, bonded labour, and forced labour. Even so, Egyptologists believe nearly all pyramid builders were drawn from a mix of 4,000 to 5,000 permanent skilled workers and some 20,000 temporary labourers working in some form of co-operative effort. These free men arrived from their villages at the building site to assist for a few months at a time, probably during the annual Nile floods when agricultural work was suspended. These workers were typically paid in graded notional rations of bread and beer that were tradeable for other goods and services. This is not to say slaves were not involved in some way, just that they were clearly not the majority of the builders. Moreover, it was also not unheard of for work parties to compete against each other in building tasks. A work gang from a particular village who moved a block of limestone the furthest in one day might be rewarded with extra rations of food, drink [1], or even make-up.

Make-up?  One thing the ordinary man or woman living 4,000 years ago would not be seen in public without is make-up.  Imagine going off to build a pyramid, your skin covered in moisturising oil, possibly perfumed, and your eyes lined with kohl, a black make-up similar to mascara. It may not sound particularly manly - not the sort of thing you would expect builders to do today, but the moisturising oil protected the skin from sunburn. With the sun blazing down, reflecting off the desert and rocks, the kohl eye-liner was needed to cut down the sun’s glare and protect your eyesight. We see such tricks used by American football players or cricketers today. So, for manual labourers working beneath the hot, bright Egyptian sun, make-up was essential. In fact, one day in 1170 BC some tomb workers went on strike because they had run out of make-up. They claimed they wanted more moisturising oil and clothes, vegetables and fish. While the workers held a peaceful sit in, local bureaucrats tried to get them back to work eventually offering the workers a month’s worth of supplies. It was to no avail, however, the strikers held out until they received two months of make-up and food.

The myth evolves  As in so many things, the truth did not get in the way of a good story and thus Herodotus’ account took root. His version of how the Great Pyramid came to be was repeated by later ancient writers. Some, like the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37 - 100), conflated the builders with those people of Israel reputedly held in slavery in Egypt according to the Old Testament book of Exodus. Yet even this ‘fact’ remains stubbornly uncorroborated by any dateable archaeological evidence. If we ignore the questionable historicity of the biblical narratives, however, today’s historians cautiously date the supposed events described in Exodus to the 13th century BC. Rather inconveniently this is 1,000 years after the pyramids of Giza were built.

All the same, Herodotus’ account was combined with the assumed truth ascribed to the biblical texts and this ensured the more salacious story survived to influence 18th and 19th century antiquarians, historians and artists. Then in the first half of the 20th century, Hollywood epic movies, for example 1955’s ‘Land of the Pharaohs’, cemented ‘slave-builders’ in popular culture. It most likely that the popular myth is based on a longstanding misunderstanding of how the ancient world worked.

Reference:

Blackmore, R., (2022), ‘Think Piece: Why we need to get our facts straight’, BBC History Magazine November 2022, p. 44.

Endnotes:

1.  Beer and bread were staples of the ancient Egyptian diet. Indeed, one might argue their entire culture was based on these two ingredients, which are laden with calories needed to provide energy for work. The bread may have been quite greasy, like a paratha, but of a lighter texture. Providing an amazing amount of energy, it would be fair to say that the pyramids were built on bread. Indeed, archaeologists have excavated huge bakeries capable of suppling the vast quantities of bread needed and eaten by the workers at Giza. In addition, we know ancient Egyptians also ate:

• Onions to go in a salad or eaten with bread.

• Wild fowl - ducks and geese - hunted by the river. Egyptians particularly enjoyed crispy roast duck basted in honey.

• Meat and fish could also be salted and hung up to dry. Many tomb and temple scenes show butchery, the preparation of meat and birds hanging from hooks in shops.

• Dried fish also featured in ancient Egyptian diets.

On This Day: Caesar Murdered!

March 15th, 44 BC: Gaius Julius Caesar is stabbed to death.

Idibus Martiis (‘the Ides of March’, 44 BC) should have been an unremarkable day. Caesar, who had been acclaimed ‘dictator in perpetuity’ the month before, was due to appear at a session of the Senate. The night before Caesar’s chief lieutenant, Marcus Antonius (‘Mark Antony’) had learned of a plot to assassinate the dictator from a terrified conspirator named Servilius Casca [1]. Fearing the worst, Antony went to intercept Caesar but the plotters, calling themselves Libertores (‘the Liberators’), had anticipated this. To prevent Antony aiding Caesar, the conspirators had arranged for Gaius Trebonius [2] to intercept Antony just as he approached the portico of the Theatre of Pompey and detain him outside. When he heard the commotion from the Senate chamber, Antony fled.

According to Plutarch [3], as Caesar arrived at the Senate meeting, Lucius Tillius Cimber [5] presented him with a petition to recall his exiled brother, while the other conspirators crowded round to offer support. Both Plutarch and Suetonius [4] say Cimber was waved away, but he grabbed Caesar’s shoulders and pulled down Caesar's toga. Caesar then cried to Cimber: Ista quidem vis est! (‘Why, this is violence!’). At that moment, Publius Servilius Casca Longus [6] drew his dagger and made a glancing thrust at Caesar's neck. Turning swiftly around Caesar caught Casca by the arm frightening the latter who shouted for his co-conspirators’ help. Within moments, the entire group, including Marcus Junius Brutus [7], were striking at Caesar who, blinded by blood, tripped and fell as he attempted to get away. The attackers continued stabbing Caesar as he lay defenceless on the lower steps of the portico.

He was stabbed 23 times but, according to Suetonius, a physician later established that only one wound, the second one to his chest, had been lethal. Despite the popularity of line Et tu, Brute? (‘And you, Brutus?’) in Shakespeare’s play ‘Julius Caesar’, Caesar's last words are not known with certainty. Suetonius' believed Caesar said nothing, a view also taken by Plutarch who reports the same but adds that Caesar simply pulled his toga over his head when he saw Brutus among the conspirators.

With the deed done Brutus and his companions marched to the Capitol. Perhaps in an omen of what was to come, the conspirators’ cry of ‘People of Rome, we are once again free!’ was met with silence as the citizens of Rome had locked themselves inside their houses as the rumours of what had taken place began to spread. Caesar's dead body lay where it fell for nearly three hours before other officials arrived to remove it for cremation. The crowd at the funeral became incensed and threw dry branches, furniture, and even clothing on to Caesar's funeral pyre. The resulting conflagration got out of control seriously damaging the Forum and neighbouring buildings. The mob then attacked the houses of Brutus and Cassius [8] only being repelled with considerable difficulty. The people’s reaction proved to be the spark that ignited a civil war.

It seems that the assassins had woefully underestimated Caesar’s popularity with the Roman middle and lower classes who were enraged that a small group of aristocrats had killed their champion. Antony, who had been drifting apart from Caesar, capitalised on the grief of the mob and threatened to unleash them on the Optimates [9] (as represented by Brutus and Cassius) most likely with the intent of taking control of Rome himself. What a surprise then when Antony learned Caesar had named his grandnephew Gaius Octavius (‘Octavian’) his sole heir, bequeathing him the immensely potent Caesar name and making him one of the wealthiest citizens in the Republic. Octavian, aged only 18 when Caesar died, proved to have considerable political skills, and while Antony dealt with Decimus Brutus in the first round of the new civil wars, Octavian consolidated his tenuous position.

To counter Brutus and Cassius, who were massing an enormous army in Greece, Antony needed soldiers, the cash from Caesar's war chests, and the legitimacy that Caesar's name would grant for any action he took against them. On November 27th, 43 BC, the lex Titia officially formed the Second Triumvirate that joined the forces of Antony, Octavian and Caesar's loyal cavalry commander, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. Together they agreed to avenge Caesar's death through a series of civil wars fought against the Liberatores. The chaos that followed resulted in several unforeseen outcomes, particularly for Antony with regard to Caesar's adopted heir.

Caesar's clemency had resulted in his murder, the Second Triumvirate reinstated the practice of proscription. Through the legally sanctioned killing of a large number of its opponents and seizing their fortunes, the Triumvirs secured funding for the 45 legions that eventually led to the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi in the second civil war.

With the deaths of Brutus and Cassius, Antony formed an alliance with Caesar's lover, Cleopatra, intending to use the fabulously wealthy Egypt as a base to dominate Rome. Almost immediately a third civil war erupted between Antony and Cleopatra on the one hand and Octavian. This final civil war, culminating in the former's defeat at Actium in 31 BC and their suicides in Egypt in 30 BC, resulted in the permanent ascendancy of Octavian. From this point the ‘Divi filius’ as Caesar Augustus became the first Roman emperor.

Endnotes:

1. Publius Servilius Casca Longus was one of Caesar’s assassins. Afterwards, Casca fought with the Liberatores, led by Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus, during the Liberators' civil war started by Antony, Octavian and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (the Second Triumvirate) to avenge Caesar's death. He is believed to have died by suicide after their defeat at the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC.

2. Gaius Trebonius (c. 92 BC – January 43 BC) was a military commander and politician of the late Roman Republic, who became suffect consul in 45 BC. He was an associate of Julius Caesar, having served as his legate and having fought on his side during the civil war, and was among the tyrannicides who killed the dictator.

3. Plutarch (c. AD 46 - after AD 119) was a Greek Middle Platonist philosopher, historian, biographer, essayist, and priest at the Temple of Apollo in Delphi. He is known primarily for his Parallel Lives, a series of biographies of illustrious Greeks and Romans, and Moralia, a collection of essays and speeches. When granted Roman citizenship, he possibly adopted the name Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus.

4. Lucius Tillius Cimber (died 42 BC) was a Roman senator and one of Caesar’s assassins who created the diversion that enabled the conspirators to attack. Cimber was initially one of Caesar's strongest supporters. Caesar granted Cimber governorship of the provinces of Bithynia and Pontus in 44 BC. He may also have been Praetor in the same year. Cicero once used Cimber's influence on Caesar to help a friend. It is not known why he joined the assassination, but Seneca [5] states that he was motivated by ambition.

5. Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC – 65 AD), usually known as Seneca, was a Stoic philosopher of Ancient Rome, a statesman, dramatist, and, in one work, satirist, from the post-Augustan age of Latin literature.

6. Publius Servilius Casca Longus (died c. 42 BC) was one of Caesar’s assassins. Afterwards, Casca fought with the Liberatores during the Liberators' civil war. He is believed to have committed suicide after their defeat at the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC.

7. Marcus Junius Brutus (c. 85 BC – 23 October 42 BC) was a Roman politician, orator, and the most famous of Caesar’s assassins. After being adopted by a relative, he used the name Quintus Servilius Caepio Brutus, which was retained as his legal name, but is often referred to simply as Brutus.

8. Gaius Cassius Longinus (c. 86 BC – October 3rd, 42 BC) was a Roman senator and brother-in-law of Brutus, the other leading instigator of the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar on March 15th, 44 BC. He commanded troops with Brutus during the Battle of Philippi against the combined forces of Mark Antony and Octavian. Cassius committed suicide after being defeated by Antony.

9. Optimates (Latin: ‘best ones’, sing. optimas) and populares (Latin: ‘supporters of the people’, sing. popularis) are labels applied to politicians, political groups, traditions, strategies, or ideologies in the late Roman Republic. Among other things, optimates have been seen as supporters of the continued authority of the senate, politicians who operated mostly in the senate, or opponents of the populares. In contrast, the populares are seen as focusing on operating before the popular assemblies, using the populace to oppose the senate.

How To: Dress as a Roman soldier Part Three

This ‘How To:’ series is aimed at the general reader or an individual wishing to portray a Roman legionary or auxiliary as accurately as our current knowledge allows. It is not intended to be an academic exploration of all the different permutations of Roman helmets, armour, swords and so on that have been identified and catalogued in the archaeological record. There are far more detailed books and online resources available elsewhere.

In Part One we looked at the common clothing and accessories typically worn by Roman soldiers of the 1st to 2nd century AD and in Part Two, the armour they wore. Part Three addresses what weapons were typically carried in the period.

‘Caveat emptor’ (Buyer beware)

There are many online sources for reproduction historical equipment, arms and armour. Some retailers offer far superior products than others, but clearly better quality comes at a higher cost. Bespoke makers ought to be the buyer’s first recourse, if their budget permits, as these skilled artisans take pride in accurately reproducing museum quality artefacts. Body armour is definitely one area where custom-made rather than ‘off-the-shelf’ is preferable. If you are going to be encased in metal for any extended period, it needs to fit and articulate well to mitigate the effects of the armour’s weight and allow a full range of movement. Poorly fitting armour risks uncomfortable chafing at the minimum but could cause actual physical harm. Having your armour made-to-measure or at least adjusted to fit well after purchase by a competent armourer is highly recommended.

Pugio (Dagger)

Many, but not necessarily all, Roman soldiers carried a dagger known as a pugio. Most likely this was used as a utility knife but it could also act as a sidearm. Generally, it had a large, leaf-shaped blade 18 to 28 cm long and 5 cm or more in width with a pronounced waist. A raised midrib ran the length of each side, either simply standing out from the face or defined by grooves on either side. Like other items of legionary equipment, the pugio underwent changes especially during the 1st century AD. The blade was made a little thinner, by about 3 mm, and the handle constructed in metal. Initially the tang was wide and flat, and the grip was riveted through it, as well as through the shoulders of the blade (see below).

Around AD 50, a rod tang was introduced, and the hilt was no longer riveted through the shoulders of the blade. Of itself this did not alter the pugio's appearance, but some of these later blades were narrower (under 3.5 cm wide), had little or no waist, and had reduced or vestigial midribs.

Throughout the period, the outline of the hilt remained roughly the same. It was made with two layers of horn, wood or bone sandwiching the tang, each overlaid with a thin metal plate. Often the hilt was decorated with inlaid silver. The hilt was 10 to 12 cm long overall, and the grip was quite narrow. Combined with an expansion or lump in the middle of the handle produced a very secure grip.

Gladius Hispaniensis (‘Spanish sword’)

Gladius (pl. gladii) is the general Latin word for ‘sword’ and as such does not relate to a specific design. In the Roman Republic, the term gladius Hispaniensis (‘Spanish sword’) referred (and still refers) specifically to the short sword, approximately 60 cm (24”) long, used by Roman legionaries as their primary weapon from the 3rd century BC. Several different better-known designs followed, the most widely recognised being the ‘Mainz’ pattern and the ‘Pompeii’ pattern (the names referring to where or how the canonical example was found). The ‘Mainz’ pattern, which had itself developed from the Hispaniensis, generally had wider, diamond-section blades of 50 to 75 cm (c. 20” to 30”) long, slightly waisted in profile, with a long tapering point. The ‘Mainz’ pattern seems to have entered service in the 1st century BC and continued in use until at least AD 40 and possibly beyond. A variation called the Fulham pattern (third from the left below) also had a long point but was only 5 cm (2") wide with straight edges that flared slightly at the hilt. The ‘Pompeii’ pattern gladii were simpler derivatives of the ‘Mainz’ type with a narrower diamond-section blade approximately 5 cm (2”) wide and 45 to 50 cm (18” to 20”) long. Its edges were parallel with a shorter, triangular shaped point. Overall, Pompeian pattern swords varied in length between 60 cm and 65 cm (24” to 26”) and weigh approximately 700 g (1.5 lb). The ‘Pompeii’ pattern was in service by the AD 50s, remaining in general use into the 2nd century AD. To confuse matters slightly, over the years the Pompeii pattern sword got longer, and these later versions were called semispathae or half-swords.

All of these blade types were double-edged with a flat diamond or lens cross-section that did not require fullers. From analysis, some surviving examples have low-carbon steel cores with high-carbon steel edges. Other blades had high-carbon steel layered over low-carbon steel cores, while some were low-carbon steel throughout.

Sword hilts comprised ‘a handguard, an octagonal-sectioned handgrip was usually made from a cow longbone, and then a pommel of slightly flattened ovoid appearance’ (Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 78). Handguards were similarly round or oval in plan when viewed from below. Both pommel and handguard were often made of wood, as the examples from Vindonissa (modern Windisch, Switzerland) show, but could be of bone or ivory. A thin brass plate may have been either set into the bottom of the guard, or flat against it, or simply not used. The blade’s tang typically projected through the hilt where it would be peened flat over a washer or small stud.

Legionaries wore their gladii on their right hips to facilitate drawing while remaining protected by their semi-cylindrical scuta (Latin: sing. scutum ‘shield’). Despite reservations, practical experimentation proves the relatively short length of both gladii and spathae (Latin: sing. spatha, ‘sword’) can be easily and quickly drawn from a scabbard (Latin: vagina). From the early 3rd century, legionaries and cavalrymen began to wear their swords on the left side, perhaps because the curved scutum had been abandoned and the gladius had been replaced by the spatha.

Like the term ‘gladius’, spatha could refer to any sword (in late Latin) but is most often associated with the longer-bladed weapons that were characteristic of the middle and late Empire. Roman cavalry was using these longer-bladed swords in the 1st century AD but by the late 2nd or early 3rd century, Roman infantry had also switched to carrying longer swords. They also changed from carrying javelins to carrying spears, which is the next subject.

Hastae (spears) and Pila (javelins)

Hasta (pl. hastae) is a Latin word generally referring to a thrusting spear. Hastae were carried by early Roman legionaries; in particular, they were carried by and gave their name to those Roman soldiers known as Hastati. However, during the Republican era, Hastati were re-armed with pila and gladii; only the Triarii retained their spears. A hasta was typically 1.8 m (6 ft) in length. The shaft was generally made from ash onto which a socketed iron spearhead was typically attached, although some early Republican hastae had bronze blades.

Although often used the word to describe all thrown javelins, the pilum (pl. pila) was a heavy javelin commonly used by the Roman army. Lighter, shorter javelins existed, such as those used by the Velites [1] and the early manipular legions [2], called verutum. Other types of javelins were adopted by the late Roman army, such as lancea and spiculum, which were heavily influenced by the weapons of Italic warriors.

From the surviving examples, it seems pila were generally somewhat shorter than 2 m (6 ft 7 in) long overall, consisting of a wooden shaft from which projected an iron shank about 7 mm (0.28 in) in diameter and 60 cm (23.6 in) long that ended in a pyramidal head of hardened iron. The iron shank was socketed or, more usually, widened to a flat tang which was rivetted into a wooden block. Pila usually weighed between 1 and 2.5 kg (2.2 and 5 lb), although versions produced during the Imperial period could be somewhat lighter.

Pila were designed as ‘penetrators’ [3] to pierce both shield and armour, wounding the wearer. If a pilum pierced or became embedded in a shield, its design of thin shank combined with a pyramidal iron head meant the pilum could not be easily removed. From experiment, the whole pilum weighs down the enemy's shield reducing its effectiveness and prevents it from being immediately re-used. The shield-bearer would most likely be forced to ditch the encumbered shield thereby losing a significant measure of protection.

Some commentators still state with conviction that the iron shank would ‘bend upon impact’, but if one takes a little time to contemplate the phrase, it is a nonsense. If the iron shank ‘bent on impact’, then it simply would not perform its penetrator job. As Dr Mike Bishop writes, pila are ‘unlikely to bend under their own weight when thrown and striking a target or ground’ (Bishop, 2017, ). Many types of pila did not bend at all, and there are examples where the whole shank was hardened making the weapon highly suited to use in a close-quarter melee (Cowan, 2003, 25-26). Moreover, a sturdy pilum that does not bend matches well with the historical Roman sources stating it was often used as a stabbing spear [4]. One example is in ‘Array against the Alans’ where Arrian writes that the first four ranks of the formation should use their pila like spearmen, while the rest should use them like javelins [5] (van Dorst, 2002).

Scutum (Shield)

The scutum (pl. scuta) was adopted by the Romans when, starting around the fourth century BC, they switched from the Greek inspired hoplite phalanx to a manipular army [2]. In the former, the soldiers carried a round shield, much like the Greek aspis, which the Romans called a clipeus, while in the latter they used the scutum. At the time of the Roman Republic shields were large, oblong and convex. Over time it seems the design was shortened by squaring the top and bottom edges. These semi-cylindrical shields are often referred to as ‘Augustan’, a reference to the reign of Emperor Augustus (27 BC to 14 BC). By the time of the Roman invasion of Britain, both this style of scutum and a newer rectangular version with squared edges all round were in service. The latter is the style most popularly equated with Roman legionaries, but it was not the only kind of shield the Romans used. Depending on the role of the soldier who carried it, examples of oval, circular and rectangular shaped shields can be identified in the archaeological record. The parma, for example, was a circular shield with a diameter of approximately three Roman feet used in the mid-Republic by the lowest class division of the army - the Velites [1]. When later the parma was widely replaced by the scutum, Signiferi (standard bearers) appear to have retained its use since to carry a signum (standard) and a large infantry scutum was impractical.

Roman shields were made by gluing multiple strips of wood together to create a form of ‘plywood’. The scutum was light enough to be held in one hand. A centrally positioned hole was cut in the shield for the hand to grip a horizontal handle. The hole was protected by a metal boss (Latin: umbo). The outside surface was covered in a combination of woollen felt and linen or leather; the latter providing waterproofing. It is apparent that shields were decorated, with the exterior face painted possibly using different colours to aid the recognition of cohorts in the confusion of battle. Specific shield designs are known to have existed as they are depicted in carved reliefs and art, but few of the surviving designs can be attributed to named units. One example can be identified, however. The grave stela of Gnaeus Museus (see below) clearly shows a small oval shield in the bottom left corner with a distinctive design incorporating what has been identified as Jupiter's thunderbolts (Latin: fulmen) - a popular motif - and the wings of Victory [6]. The tombstone’s inscription usefully informs us that Gnaeus was an ‘Eagle bearer’ (Latin: aquilifer) who served in the 14th Legion (Legio XIIII Gemina). So, even though we cannot be 100% certain, it is not unreasonable to connect this specific design with said legion.

References:

Bishop, M.C., (2002), ‘Lorica Segmentata Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour’, JRMES Monograph 1, Great Britain: The Armatvra Press.

Bishop, M.C., (2017), ‘The Pilum: The Roman Heavy Javelin’, Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Bishop, M.C. & Coulston, J.C.N., (2006), ‘Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome’, second edition, Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Cowan, R., (2003), ‘Equipment’, Roman legionary: 58 BC - AD 69, Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Robinson, H.R., (1975), ‘The Armour of Imperial Rome’, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

van Dorst, S., (2002), ’Arrian's Array against the Alans’, Available online (accessed January 8th, 2023).

Endnotes:

1. Though they still owned land, the Velites (light infantry) of the Republican army comprised the unreliable and otherwise poor combatants of the original fifth class of the earlier Greek-style phalanx. In his ‘Rise of the Roman Empire’, the Greek author Polybius, from whom we get our best description of the Roman army of the period, states that the Velites were usually the youngest of the soldiers. They were armed with a short sword (gladius) and several javelins. They wore light armour, which usually consisted of little more than greaves (ocrea) on the legs and a bronze helmet and carried-a basic round shield or clipeus. Velites were used as skirmishers and to screen the three lines of heavy infantry (the Hastatii, the Principes, and the Triarii) in the opening phases of a battle.

2. After 331 BC the internal organisation of the Roman legion became more sophisticated. The developments from the classic phalanx to using ‘maniples’ (Latin: manipulus, lit. 'a handful [of soldiers]') allowed important tactical innovations. The manipular system was adopted by Roman Republican armies around 315 BC, during the Second Samnite War. Most significantly, for the first time, the classes of soldiers who comprised the legions were based on experience and age rather than wealth, with standard weapons and equipment issued by the state. In the middle years of the Republic, the Roman army was organised into three lines of heavy infantry, the Hastatii, the Principes, and the Triarii. Each of these three lines was subdivided into maniples of 120, 120 and 60 men, respectively. A full Republican legion, therefore, fielded about 3,000 men. The more familiar cohort system replaced maniples as organisational units following the Marian reforms of 107 BC. 

3. In military terms a ‘penetrator’ is hard alloy projectile that harnesses kinetic energy to pierce the armour of tanks and fortifications as opposed to one that carries an explosive charge or another chemical or biological substance.

4. Caesar writes in his ‘Gallic Wars’ that his troops used their pila as spears or pikes during the Siege of Alesia. While in the ‘Life of Pompey’ and ‘Life of Antony’, Plutarch describes Caesar's men at Pharsalus jabbing upwards at the faces of Pompey's cavalry with their javelins and Marc Antony's men stabbing at Parthian cavalry with theirs.

5. Arrian's Array against the Alans: ‘And the front four ranks of the formation must be of spearmen, whose spearpoints end in thin iron shanks. And the foremost of them should hold them at the ready, in order that when the enemies come near them, they can thrust the iron points of the spears at the breast of the horses in particular. Those standing in second, third and fourth rank of the formation must hold their spears ready for thrusting if possible, wounding the horses and killing the horsemen and put the rider out of action with the spear stuck in their heavy body armour and the iron point bent because of the softness. The following ranks should be of the javelineers.’

6. In ancient Roman religion Victoria was the deified personification of victory. She first appears during the first Punic War, seemingly as a Romanised re-naming of Nike, the Greek version. Winged figures, very often in pairs, representing victory and referred to as ‘winged victories’, are common in Roman iconography and represent the ‘spirit of victory’ rather than a full-blown deity.