About History: Double weight Roman swords and shields

Many of us have heard or read that recruits to the Roman army trained with double weight swords and shields while practicing their attacks and defences against a wooden stake or post. The notion stems from the extant 5th-century AD writing of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in his work Epitoma Rei Militaris (“Epitome of Military Science”). More specifically, in Chapter 11 of Book One on “Recruitment and Training” we read:

Antiqui, sicut inuenitur in libris, hoc genere exercuere tirones. Scuta de uimine in modum cratium conrotundata texebant, ita ut duplum pondus cratis haberet, quam scutum publicum habere consueuit. Idemque clauas ligneas dupli aeque ponderis pro gladiis tironibus dabant. Eoque modo non tantum mane sed etiam post meridiem exercebantur ad palos. Palorum enim usus non solum militibus sed etiam gladiatoribus plurimum prodest.

“The ancients, as is found in books, trained recruits in this manner. They wove shields from withies, of hurdle-like construction, and rounded, such that the hurdle was twice the weight that an official shield normally has. They also gave recruits wooden foils likewise of double weight, instead of swords. So equipped, they were trained not only in the morning but even after noon against posts, for the use of posts is of very great benefit to gladiators as well as soldiers.”

So, we are told that the Romans gave their recruits round wicker shields (Latin: scuta; sing. scutum) twice as heavy as those used on active service. No problem, but what follows - “Idemque clauas ligneas dupli aeque ponderis pro gladiis tironibus dabant.” - has often been mistranslated into English as the recruits trained with “wooden swords”. The sentence begins with idemque meaning “in the same way”. This refers once more to the training shields being double the normal weight. The sentence ends by saying that the training weapon given to recruits (tironibus dabant) was double the weight of a gladius “sword”. So far so good, but clauas ligneas does not mean sword, or more specifically a wooden sword (Latin: rudis). The simplest translation in English would be “wooden foil” but in this context perhaps “wooden club” would be a better fit.

It was these double-weight clubs that were used, in conjunction with the heavier wicker shields, to train recruits at the palus or “post”. The increased weight was clearly intended to strengthen the recruit physically, improve their endurance and, when they took up real, lighter weapons, allow them to fight with more confidence and agility. When recruits moved on to one-on-one full contact sparring, then the clubs were not used in favour of a lighter wooden sword or rudis. Bon appétit!

About History: Testudo

Etymology  The Roman testudo means “tortoise” not “turtle”, even if Rex Harrison, playing Julius Caesar in the 1963 film “Cleopatra”, uses the latter term. To be fair, he was delivering a line from script written by an American, which may sound a little condescending until one realises that in North America “turtle” is used to denote the whole group of creatures. In fact, the order’s name, Testudines, is based on the Latin word testudo meaning “tortoise” and was coined by German naturalist August Batsch in 1788. The word “turtle”, however, is borrowed from the French word tortue or tortre which is seemingly used interchangeably to mean either “turtle” or “tortoise”. In Britain, where tortoises and turtles are not native, “turtle” is reserved for sea turtles as opposed to freshwater terrapins and land-dwelling tortoises.

The ancient Roman army used the term testudo because their soldiers’ shields formed an all-round shell-like defence reminiscent of a tortoise. The front rank of men, possibly excluding those on the two flanks, held their shields from about shin height to their eyes, creating a contiguous “wall” protecting the formation's front. Those men in the succeeding ranks would raise their shields above their heads using the shields to not only protect themselves but also the head of the man preceding them. There has been some debate as to whether shields were underlapped as shown in the colour image above or overlapped as shown in the black and white image from a relief panel on Trajan’s Column in Rome. In fact, contemporary imagery from the Roman period depicts shields being used in both styles so either manner is attested and thus correct.

From experience overlapping shields is easier to execute, even while advancing, but critics have claimed that arrows, for example, could breach the formation passing under the shield rim. As can be observed in the accompanying image of a small testudo, gaps in the overlapped shields are minimal. The biggest danger is the much larger opening where the front rank men’s heads can be seen. While one man has to keep watch to “steer” the formation, the threat to the others can be minimised by tilting the head downward so the crown of the helmet is presented and the face protected. From bitter experience, a well placed arrow can still penetrate the testudo, but such shots are the exception.

The men along the formation’s flanks, however, would present a shield wall to either side of the testudo. If necessary, the soldiers at the rear of the formation could stand backwards with their shields held as the front ranks to protect the formation's rear. In this manner the testudo offered all-round defence against opposing infantry and excellent protection against arrows and other missile attacks, albeit at the cost of reducing the speed and mobility of the formation.

Battlefield use  The two principal uses of the testudo most often quoted are as a defence against enemy missiles or projectiles, or to close on defended positions or fortifications during sieges. The former was most likely employed by stationary troops as Cassius Dio implies in his description of Mark Antony’s campaign in 36 BC:

“This testudo and the way in which it is formed are as follows. The baggage animals, the light-armed troops, and the cavalry are placed in the centre of the army. The heavy-armed troops who use the oblong, curved, and cylindrical shields are drawn up around the outside, making a rectangular figure; and, facing outward and holding their arms at the ready, they enclose the rest. The others, who have flat shields, form a compact body in the centre and raise their shields over the heads of all the others so that nothing but shields can be seen in every part of the phalanx alike and all the men by the density of the formation are under shelter from missiles. Indeed, it is so marvellously strong that men can walk upon it and whenever they come to a narrow ravine, even horses and vehicles can be driven over it.” (Cassius Dio, “Roman History”, XLIX, 30)

Dio does not suggest that Anthony’s troops were moving but the testudo can be used on the march. Because of its density or compact nature of the formation, the primary drawback was that it was more difficult to fight in hand-to-hand combat and because the soldiers are required to move in unison, speed was sacrificed. Yet it is documented that the steadily advancing testudo was used in siege warfare to close on and storm a defended position. Tacitus, for example, recorded its use during the siege of the city of Cremona by the troops commanded by Marcus Antonius Primus, part of Titus Flavius Vespasianus’ army. During the attack the troops advanced under the rampart “holding their shields above their heads in close ‘tortoise’ formation” (Tacitus, “Histories”, III, 27).

The testudo was not invincible. Once again Cassius Dio provides an account of a Roman testudo being defeated by Parthian cataphracts and horse archers at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC:

“For if [the legionaries] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the [cataphracts] were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their rank to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows.” (Cassius Dio, “Roman History”, XL, 22)

Forming a testudo severely restricted the Romans ability to engage in melee combat. The Parthian cataphracts exploited that weakness and repeatedly charged the Roman line, which caused panic and inflicted heavy casualties. When the Romans tried to open their formation to repel the cataphracts, the latter rapidly retreated, and the horse archers resumed shooting at the legionaries, who were now more exposed. In effect the Parthians were able to pin the soldiers of Marcus Licinius Crassus’ army in place and systematically engage them with cavalry charges and withering volleys of arrows from a distance.

Mythbusting  As an aside, after the defeat at Carrhae an estimated 10,000 Roman prisoners of war appear to have been deported to Alexandria Margiana (Merv) near the Parthian Empire's northeastern border in 53 BC. Employed as border guards they reportedly married local women. Nearly twenty years later the nomadic Xiongnu tribal confederation [1], led by their chieftain Zhizhi Chanyu, had migrated east and established a state in the Talas valley, near modern-day Taraz, Kazakhstan. Fearful that Zhizhi was planning to build a great empire, in 36 BC the Chinese Han Dynasty launched a pre-emptive attack and besieged Zhizhi’s wooden-palisade fortress. According to the Chinese account of one Ban Gu, during the subsequent Battle of Zhizhi about “a hundred men” under the Zhizhi’s command fought in a so-called “fish-scale formation”. In the 1940s, Homer H. Dubs, an American professor of Chinese history at the University of Oxford, hypothesized that this might have been the Roman testudo formation and that these men, who were captured by the Chinese, founded the village of Liqian (Li-chien, possibly from “legio”) in Yongchang County. Dubs proposed that the people of Liqian [2] were thus descended from these Roman prisoners. To date, no artifacts that might confirm a Roman presence, such as coins or weaponry, have been discovered in Liqian. Dubs' theories therefore have been rejected by modern historians and geneticists on the grounds of a critical appraisal of the ancient sources and recent DNA testing of Liqian residents. This “rural myth”, which quite regularly resurfaces on social media, has spawned at least three works of popular fiction. Alfred Duggan used the possible fate of the Roman prisoners as the kernel of his novel “Winter Quarters” suggesting they were employed as frontier guards on the eastern border of the Parthian Empire. Ben Kane used the recurring myth as the basis for his novel “The Forgotten Legion”. While in “Empire of the Dragons”, Valerio Massimo Manfredi deviates slightly from the premise placing the starting point of his novel in AD 260, some 200 years after Crassus’ ill-fated campaign. In Manfredi’s version a small group of Roman soldiers escape the Parthians but end up as the personal bodyguard of an exiled prince accompanying him on his epic journey through the forests of India, the Himalayan mountains, the deserts of central Asia and all the way to the heart of China.

Phoulkon  Despite this apparent weakness the testudo could still be an effective defence against less well-trained cavalry. Thus we encounter in Plutarch’s version of Mark Antony’s campaign in Parthia in 36 BC a description of the testudo being used as a static defensive formation:

“Then the shield-bearers wheeled about, enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks, while they themselves dropped on one knee and held their shields out before them. The second rank held their shields out over the heads of the first, and the next rank likewise. The resulting appearance is very like that of a roof, affords a striking spectacle, and is the most effective of protections against arrows, which glide off from it.” (Plutarch, Parallel Lives: Anthony, 45)

The description is reminiscent of the much later “phoulkon” (Greek: φοῦλκον), in Latin: *fulcum, a close-order infantry formation used by the military of the late Roman and Byzantine Empire. The term “phoulkon” is first attested in the Strategikon of Maurice, a military manual written in the AD 590s. Although written in Greek, the author of the Strategikon “also frequently employed Latin and other terms which have been in common military use” (Rance, 2004, 267). Like other military terminology found in the manual, “phoulkon” is likely a Greek transliteration of a hypothetical Latin word *fulcum, a term not attested in any surviving texts (Rance, 2004, 286). The only other early Byzantine author to use the term was Theophanes the Confessor, who describes Rhazates arranging his troops in three phoulka when facing Heraclius's army at the Battle of Nineveh in AD 627 (Rance, 2004, 310–311). Later Byzantine writings, such as De velitatione bellica and Praecepta Militaria, describe keeping a portion of troops, either cavalry or infantry, in phoulka to serve as guard while the rest of the army dispersed for pillaging or foraging. These later usages appear to have evolved to simply mean a “battle formation”, rather than Maurice's specific description of a shield wall tactic (Rance, 2004, 321–324).

Before close contact with the enemy, and while outside archery range, on the command “ad fulco” (αδ φουλκω) the infantry closed ranks and formed a shield wall from the first two lines (Rance, 2004, 271–272). As they advanced, light infantry from the rear would shoot arrows at the enemy while the heavy infantry could hurl martiobarbuli darts or throw their spears before closing and engaging in hand-to-hand combat with the spatha (Rance, 2004, 274–275). In the presence of enemy cavalry, the first three ranks of the phoulkon would form a shield wall and thrust their spears outwards while fixing the ends in the ground. The third and subsequent rear ranks would hurl projectiles, while the light infantry shot arrows (Rance, 2004, 276–280).

Though only the Strategikon explicitly describes this formation as a phoulkon, such tactics appear to have been established Roman practice. In the Strategikon we read:

“If the enemy [cavalry], coming within a bow shot, attempts to break or dislodge the phalanx...then the infantry close up in the regular manner. And the first, second and third man in each file are to form themselves into a phoulkon, that is, one shield upon another, and having thrust their spears straight forward beyond their shields, fix them firmly in the ground...They also lean their shoulders and put their weight against their shields so that they might easily endure the pressure from those outside. The third man, standing more upright, and the fourth, holding their spears like javelins either stab those coming close or hurl them and draw their swords.”

In his work Ektaxis kata Alanon (“Deployment against the Alans”) Arrian describes an almost identical tactic used centuries earlier against the Alans:

“If [the enemy cavalry] do approach, the first three ranks, closing their shields together and exerting pressure with their shoulders, should receive the attack as steadfastly as possible and locking together very closely, pressing themselves together as firmly as they are able. The fourth rank should throw javelins overhead, while the third rank should strike with their spears or throw them like javelins unstintingly at both horses and riders.”

Other tactical uses  Testudines were also employed to cross obstacles if we believe Cassius Dio’s comment: “…whenever they come to a narrow ravine, even horses and vehicles can be driven over it.” One suspects that this might be something performed in extremis when no other options were immediately available. Scrambling up a testudo to scale a palisade or wall appears feasible although curved shields would not offer a particularly good climbing surface. Moreover, in the face of a determined defender it seems a riskier option than using scaling ladders which are attested and would be far more effective. 

A fifth use is revealed by Plutarch comment “enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks”. The same sentiment is expressed in Cassius Dio’s description of the testudo being used to protect “[t]he baggage animals, the light-armed troops, and the cavalry…placed in the centre of the army.” Two further uses of testudines have been suggested, namely as a defence when reforming troops during lulls in battle and in critical situations during a melee. The former, presumably resembling the aforementioned “phoulkon”, would rely on the troops breaking contact with the enemy to give them the time and space to re-order their ranks. The latter example seems counter-intuitive in the classic all-round defensive testudo which provides little option for hand-to-hand combat but less so if using “phoulka”.

Later usage  Testudines were a common feature in the Middle Ages. The following examples serve to prove the tactical sense of using shield formations in battle, especially during sieges where attackers are vulnerable to missiles from the defensive works above (Rance, 2004, 286; 310-311; 321-324):

• A testudo was used by Muhammad's forces during the Siege of Ta'if in AD 630 (Muir, 1861, 145).

• The Carolingian Frankish soldiers of Louis the Pious used one to advance on the walls of Barcelona during the siege of the city in AD 800–801.

• During the siege of Paris in AD 885–886 the Norse besiegers would undoubtedly have used their shields to protect against the defenders’ missiles as the approached the walls and during any breaching assault.

• East Frankish soldiers under King Arnulf of Carinthia used a similar tactic during the siege of Bergamo in AD 894, as did the Lotharingians under Conrad the Red at the siege of Senlis in AD 949, and by Lotharingian defenders at the siege of Verdun in AD 984.

• Just over a century later and the Crusaders of Count Raymond IV of Toulouse were employing the same tactic during the siege of Nicaea in AD 1097 (Bradbury, 1992, 280).

The testudo formation was again employed by Mediæval Arabs, who called it the dabbāba or “crawler”. It was employed by Abu Abdallah al-Shi'i in the AD 906 siege of Tobna (in modern-day Algeria), where he used it to protect sappers as they advanced to the city walls to undermine and collapse a tower, creating a breach for their allies to enter the city (Halm, 1996, 110).

Although in popular culture testudines are associated with the Romans, the formation has a much longer history. This makes perfect sense when one considers that this obvious and simple tactic allows shield armed troops to not only safely manoeuvre, whether on the battlefield or during a siege, but also protect themselves against missiles and projectiles. Indeed, testudines can be observed being employed by modern riot police in various countries across the globe. And why would they not – the testudo just works. Bon appétit!

References:

Bradbury, J., (1992), “The Medieval Siege”, Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

Cassius Dio, “Roman History”, Book XL, chapter 22, Volume III of the Loeb Classical Library 1914 edition, available online at LacusCurtius (accessed 25 March 2025).

Cassius Dio, “Roman History”, Book XLIX, chapter 30, Volume V of the Loeb Classical Library 1917 edition, available online at LacusCurtius (accessed 25 March 2025).

Halm, H., (1996), “The Empire of the Mahdi: The Rise of the Fatimids”, (Translated from the German by Michael Bonner), Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Muir, W., (1861), “The Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira: With Introductory Chapters on the Original Sources for the Biography of Mahomet and on the Pre-Islamite History of Arabia”, Smith, Elder & Company.

Plutarch, “Parallel Lives: Antony, chapter 45”, Volume IX of the Loeb Classical Library 1920 edition, available online at LacusCurtius (accessed 23 March 2025). 

Rance, P., (2004), “The Fulcum, the Late Roman and Byzantine Testudo: The Germanization of Roman Infantry Tactics?”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 44, pp. 265–326.

Tacitus, “Histories”, Book III, chapter 27, Volume II of the Loeb Classical Library 1925 edition, available online at LacusCurtius (accessed 25 March 2025).

Endnotes:

1. The Xiongnu (Chinese: 匈奴) were a tribal confederation of nomadic peoples who, according to ancient Chinese sources, inhabited the eastern Eurasian Steppe from the 3rd century BC to the late 1st century AD.

2. Zhelaizhai (traditional Chinese: 者來寨) is a village on the edge of the Gobi desert in Gansu province, China. The area was renamed after Liqian, an ancient county, and is located in Jiaojiazhuang township, Yongchang County. Some of the modern-day residents of Zhelaizhai, now known as Liqian village, claim to be the descendants of the accounted for Roman prisoners of war after the Battle of Carrhae.

Food History: A Roman soldier’s diet

The diet of a Roman soldier consisted of wheat, rations of smoked bacon or fresh meat (when available, usually pork), vegetables, legumes, cheese, vinegar, olive oil, and wine. These rations were issued several times per week so that every soldier would have carried food for around three days. The cost of the ration, around 60 Denarii per year, was deducted from each soldier’s pay.

Food

Just like for Roman civilians the bulk of the diet of a Roman soldier consisted of wheat that was usually eaten as either bread or as a porridge known as puls made from emmer wheat. Of the other grains available, oats were seen as fodder and would only be eaten in times of extreme hunger, millet was only grown in small amounts, rye was only grown in areas too cold for wheat, and rations of barley are recorded being issued to soldiers as a punishment for minor offences.

In the second century BC, Roman soldiers received a ration of about 66 pounds of wheat per month. The grain was issued whole so had to be milled and processed by the soldier himself. The men of each Conturbernium [1] were responsible for preparing their meals, either doing so together or with individual soldiers taking turns. Neither temporary military camps nor long-term Roman forts had any sort of mess hall or big kitchens in which meals could be prepared for the entire unit.

As Romans preferred pork (from Latin: porcus ‘pig’) over beef (Latin: bubula) [2] it is safe to say that the bacon was an important part of the Roman soldier’s diet as it provided him with both fat and a lot of calories. When smoked the bacon would be much easier to transport than, for example, olive oil, another source of fat, which had to be transported in either barrels or clay amphorae, the latter being obviously more fragile.

In addition to the wheat and bacon the ration included legumes like lentils and beans that were high in protein. Cheese (Latin: caseus) was also a staple of the soldier’s diet. Since Romans did not really appreciate beef or, by extension, cow’s milk, cheese was primarily made from either sheep’s or goat’s milk. Cheese in the ancient world seems to be mainly of the soft varieties such as cottage cheese and feta. As is the modern practice, the latter was formed into large blocks and aged in brine (being washed before use to reduce its saltiness). Smoked cheeses were also made to preserve them for longer so may well have been favoured by soldiers when available.

Archaeologists have found additional foodstuffs at several Roman army camps suggesting that soldiers, especially officers, could also buy finer imported ingredients like coriander, oysters or spices such as pepper imported from India.

Drink

Water was essential as every man might consume between 2 and 8 litres (½ to 2 gallons) per day depending on the climate and the physical demands he had to face. One major logistical problem was the supply of water fresh which could prove unreliable at times, especially on a campaign. Consequently, water was often transported in barrels, but this might easily become tainted. Wine and vinegar, therefore, were mixed with the less than fresh water to counteract any aftertaste. By adding vinegar to water the Romans created Posca, an everyday drink popular in the army and also the urban poor. It has a refreshingly sour taste, but one that would have also disguised the smell and taste of stale water. The Roman’s development of posca was also convenient economically since the faulty storage of wine tends to result in vinegar.

According to Andrew Dalby, the initial unfamiliarity with posca in the Greek-speaking East meant writers such as Plutarch used the Greek term oxos ‘vinegar’. The same word was used in the crucifixion narratives which was rendered acetum in the Vulgate Latin translation of the Bible and ‘vinegar’ or its equivalent in many modern versions (Dalby, 2003, 270). Thus, the drink handed to the crucified Jesus was most likely posca and, contrary to the popular belief, may not have been intended as a torment but a sign of compassion. The Roman soldier gave Jesus his preferred drink, and probably from his own ration.

Alongside water, posca, and beer in the northern provinces, wine (Latin: vinum) was a popular drink. In general, most Romans thought the habit of drinking pure wine was barbaric, although extremely good quality wine was drunk pure albeit only in small quantities. ‘Moderation was promoted by the almost universal Greek and Roman habit of drinking wines mixed with water’ (Dalby. 2003, 350). For soldiers on campaign that had the bonus of limiting their opportunity for drunkenness and any resulting disciplinary issues.

Bon appétit!

Reference:

Dalby, A. (2003), ‘Food in the Ancient World from A to Z’, London: Routledge.

Endnotes:

1. As defined in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, contubernium meant a ‘dwelling together’, as of soldiers or animals, but referred especially to a quasi-marital union between slave and slave or slave and free. Within a century, a contubernium consisted of eight soldiers so ten contubernia formed a century of 80 fighting men commanded by a centurio (centurion).

2. For the most part ancient Roman authors on farming practices assume cattle will be kept as working animals rather than for milk or meat.

 

On This Day: Disaster at Isandlwana

January 22nd, 1879: The attempt to extend British colonial influence into Zululand are met with fierce resistance as Zulu warriors rout British troops at Isandlwana.

As dawn broke on that fateful day thousands of Zulu warriors lay concealed in the undulating valley of Ngwebeni, beyond the eastern border of the British colony of Natal in South Africa. The action that would shortly take place followed months of machinations by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Carnarvon, to extend British Imperial influence in the region. At the beginning of 1879 British forces had invaded Zululand but now the warriors led by Zulu King Cetshwayo were preparing to defend their homeland. 

Two days earlier 4,000 British troops had pitched camp at Isandlwana. Their commander, Lieutenant General Lord Chelmsford, was so confident of force’s fighting superiority that the camp was only lightly defended. On hearing that a large Zulu presence was near Rorke’s Drift, the setting for the 1964 film ‘Zulu’, Chelmsford detached the main body of his army to investigate. About 1,700 men were left behind at Isandlwana. To compound things, Chelmsford had completely underestimated how vulnerable the British position was to attack and failed to ‘laager’ - an Afrikaans word for deploying wagons in a circular barrier around the camp.

Shortly after 11 am on January 22nd, a mass of some 20,000 Zulu warriors appeared on the horizon at Isandlwana and the attack began. Caught off-guard the dismayed British troops could only fire round after round in the hope of defending the position. As the engagement gained pace an eclipse darkened the sky which can only have added to the confusion and fear of the British and colonial troops. When the sun eventually returned they found themselves encircled. Despite modern rifles, the men in their red coats were reduced to desperate hand-to-hand fighting, stabbing with bayonets, until eventually overwhelmed. The resulting bloodbath saw 1,300 British troops killed, along with hundreds of Zulus.

Reference:

Carr, H., (2023), ‘Zulu warriors rout British troops at Isandlwana’, BBC History Magazine January edition, p. 7.

Rome's 'Secret Agents'

There is a tendency to attribute modern structures, ranks and roles to descriptions of the ancient Roman army (Latin: exercitus). Such endeavours are precarious because, despite the seemingly obvious parallels, there is no certain equivalence. That said, just as today statecraft requires intelligence to determine the potential threats to a nation or, in this case, the Roman Empire. It should be no surprise, given Rome’s highly organised military and civil bureaucracy, that the army provided the means to gather the necessary information.

In more modern times, the military intelligence departments of the UK’s War Office (now the Ministry of Defence (MoD)) became the Security Service (MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS/MI6) and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Unsurprisingly the functions of these latter day secret organisations can be found rooted in the Roman Empire where internal and external security was as paramount then as it is now. Rome’s intelligence units were created, evolved, and disbanded over the centuries such that, in their long history, they have been known by many names. What follows is an attempt to unravel the ‘who’s who’ and discover what roles, tasks, and functions Rome’s ‘secret agents’ performed.

Firstly, the Romans did not have a formal intelligence service(s) as we understand it today. The reluctance to develop such organisations stemmed from the unique way its republican government had developed. The Roman Senate, which was composed of men from wealthy, upper-class families, acted with a certain amount of class loyalty that allowed the state to push its interests and expand overseas. But the Senate was not of one mind. There was always tremendous personal competition among individuals and families for the wealth and glory that such conquest created. To further their parochial ends, these men needed to know what others were doing and planning, and so they used their private intelligence networks to advance their own careers (Howard, 2006).

The Romans had no qualms about using espionage on a personal level. Every Roman aristocrat had his private network of business associates, informers, clansmen, slaves, or agents (male or female) who could keep him informed on the latest happenings in the Senate, the activities of rival families, or the goings-on in his own home.

Informatores  On the Ides of March (March 15th) in 44 BC, during a meeting of the Senate at the temporary Curia in the Theatre of Pompey in Rome, the Roman dictator, Gaius Julius Caesar, was murdered by a group of senators opposed to his dictatorship. When Caesar’s adopted heir Octavianus was elevated to imperial power he was cognizant with the threat of assassination. Known by the title ‘Augustus’, the new emperor was fully aware that the most likely conspirators would be from the upper echelons of Roman society, from the equestrian or senatorial classes. With this in mind, undercover informers, informatores, who were generally chosen from the Praetorian Guard either at the rank of centurion or tribune, were tasked with arresting anyone plotting against the Emperor. To uncover such plots necessitated informatores to operate at the higher levels of Rome’s bureaucracy often requiring them to develop contacts or co-operate with state-level procurators.

Provocatores  Much like the informatores already mentioned, provocatores were also tasked with identifying disloyalty toward the Emperor. They operated undercover within Roman territory aiming to gain the trust of those they were investigating. Having done so it is believed provocatores would provoke the intended target, by example, to speak ill of the Emperor. Should the target follow the provocator's lead, then said individual would have effectively entrapped themselves and be arrested.

Exploratores  As their names implies (exploratio means ‘to explore, to investigate, to examine’), exploratores were the scouts of the Roman army. In the early years of the Principate soldiers selected from the auxiliary cavalry were detached from their units for a length of time for this purpose. We know little, however, about how the exploratores were organised but if they were drawn largely from the cavalry, then the smallest operational unit probably would be a turma consisting of thirty horsemen commanded by a decurion. Although relatively small, these mounted patrols had the flexibility to range far and wide reconnoitring ahead and to the flanks of the legion’s main body to detect the enemy. It is worth remembering that while each turma could protect itself, exploratores were not intended to engage with an enemy force but rather to gather information and report back on its location, strength, activity and direction of movement.

As part of their mission, exploratores also reconnoitred the terrain to identify landmarks or locate obstacles that might hinder or slow a legion’s advance. The latter might include forests or woodland, mountainous ridges and valleys, rivers or wetlands. In doing so, their task would most probably also involve identifying possible crossing points. One final task each day would be to locate a favourable site for the construction of the legion’s marching camp.

It seems exploratores were very much the tactical reconnaissance units of the Roman army. The information they gathered would have informed the legion’s commanders of the immediate intelligence picture while on campaign. At the operational or strategic level, however, information was also needed to protect the empire’s interests, identify unrest in its far-flung provinces, and any external threats posed to its borders. Enter the frumentarii.

Frumentarii  On the face of it, frumentarii were ‘grain collectors’ - frumentum, after all, means ‘grain’. Working for the military commissariat they were tasked with ensuring the Army was reliably supplied with this staple of the Mediterranean diet.

There are two main sources of information about the frumentarii, inscriptions on gravestones and anecdotes where the actions of individual frumentarii are mentioned by historians. From inscriptions, albeit except for few named centurions (centurio frumentarius), it seems clear that the frumentarii were mostly attached to individual legions. This strongly supports the idea that their main function was, as their name suggests, to service those legions with grain supplies. These duties would have necessarily involved a lot of travelling and brought the frumentarii into contact with enough locals and natives to acquire considerable information about any given territory. Knowledge of the geography, landmarks, communication routes, and strategic objectives such as settlements, farms or granaries would have been valuable military intelligence.

With the frumentarii ranging far and wide, it seems probable that, in the 2nd-century AD, Emperor Trajan added the role of couriers charged with the conveyance of military dispatches to their tasks. By the time Emperor Hadrian succeeded to the throne, the need for an empire-wide intelligence service had become clear. Yet establishing and funding a new service tasked with secretly spying on the Empire’s citizens was not as straightforward as it might seem. Envisioning the large scale of the operation, Hadrian followed his predecessor’s example and turned to his ‘private agents’ - presumably the frumentarii - to be a ready-made information gathering service and couriers of official messages.

In The Life of Commodus it is reported that the emperor’s Praetorian prefects had a particular individual, who was felt to exert a negative influence over the emperor, ‘assassinated by means of their private agents’ (Historia Augusta, The Life of Commodus, 4.5). Once again the use of the term ‘private agents’ may allude to the clandestine activities of the frumentarii.

It seems that the duties of the frumentarii evolved over time, developing from their initial connection with the grain supply and the necessity to travel between Rome and its provinces. Although each frumentarius appears to have belonged to a particular legion, they seem to have liaised with a central bureaucracy in the Castra Peregrina (‘camp of the foreigners’). Their freedom of movement no doubt led to their employment throughout the second century as couriers and messengers. The clandestine nature of the frumentarii‘s tasks may have been exploited so that, on occasion, they may have acted as imperial assassins. but more often than not they represented the forces of law and order.

Speculatores  In both the legions and in the praetorian camp, speculatores were initially scouts tasked with gathering as much information as possible about the enemy. It should be fairly evident, therefore, that what was collected by speculatores and the more numerous exploratores (see above) often overlapped.

Over time, however, it seems speculatores became imperial bodyguards, couriers, law-enforcers, and sometimes executioners. Where such tasks required the wearing of ‘plain clothes’ may explain why they were considered ‘spies’ (Occulta speculator / speculatrix). Units were organised in the standard legion manner led by a centurion and his ‘chosen man’ or Optio, and commanded by the Centurio Speculatorum Augustorum when accompanying the emperor on military campaigns.

On the suicide of Emperor Nero, the first permanent imperial bodyguards, the Corporis Custodes (also known as Germanic or Batavian bodyguards), were replaced by the new Emperor Galba’s own bodyguard, the speculatores. They remained the imperial bodyguard until the Emperor Trajan promoted his own Equites Singulares to the role.

Despite being the emperor’s private, standalone unit, complete with its own barracks, the speculatores were frequently counted part of the Praetorian Guard. Indeed, it seems the Guard, especially its cavalry element, was a prime recruiting ground for speculatores.

Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman historian, reports that in AD 365 the usurper Procopius sent speculatores to Constantinople to spread hostile rumours about Emperor Valentinian I. If true, then the whispering campaign was somewhat successful as Procopius was elected emperor on September 28th, AD 365, reigning a whole eight months until May 27th, AD 366.

Arcani  Vindolanda Tablet 162, pictured, is a fragment of a leaf containing two words, ‘miles arcanvs’ written in a good capital hand. The Roman Inscriptions in Britain (RIB) website suggests it is possibly some sort of ‘tag’, merely recording the name of a Roman soldier since ‘Arcanus’ is a known cognomen [1]. Alternatively, it might be a reference to some type of intelligence officer or agent (see exploratores above). In the latter context, the only reference to arcanus is by Ammianus Marcellinus (Book 28.3.8):

‘...haec etiam praecipua arcanos [2] genus hominum a veteribus institutum, super quibus aliqua in actibus Constantis rettulimus, paulatim prolapsos in vitia a stationibus suis removit: aperte convictos, acceptarum promissarumque magnitudine praedarum allectos, quae apud nos agebantur, aliquotiens barbaris prodidisse. id enim illis erat officium, ut ultro citroque [per longa spatia] discurrentes, vicinarum gentium strepitus nostris ducibus intimarent...

‘During these outstanding events the arcani, who had gradually become corrupt, were removed by him [Theodosius] from their positions. This was an organisation founded in early times, of which I have already said something in the history of Constans. It was clearly proved against them that they had been bribed with quantities of plunder, or promises of it, to reveal to the enemy from time to time what was happening on our side. Their official duty was to range backwards and forwards over long distances with information for our generals about disturbances among neighbouring nations.’

Ammianus’ description implies the arcani were a longstanding institution and appear to have been a force based in Britannia during the later period of Roman occupation of the island. They had played some part in the campaign of Constans in Britain in AD 343 and later helped to instigate the Great Conspiracy in AD 367 - 368 [3]. Due to their participation in the Conspiracy, Count Theodosius disbanded them (Marcellinus, Book 28.3.8) [4].

The duties that Ammianus describes, traveling and reporting the news of the tribes to Roman leaders, are appropriate to military scouts (Richmond, 1958, 115). It is conceivable that the arcani may have lived and operated in the paramilitary zone between the Antonine Wall running across Caledonia (Scotland) and the Vallum to its South. It is tempting to speculate that the Vindolanda tablet might be an ‘identity card’ carried by someone moving about the countryside, conducting reconnaissance in ‘plain clothes’, which could be produced if challenged by other Roman military personnel? It is not beyond the realms of possibility, but we cannot know for certain.

Agentes in rebus  The agentes in rebus were the late Roman imperial courier service and general agents of the central government from the 4th- to the 7th-centuries AD. The exact date of their institution is unknown. They are first mentioned in AD 319, but may date to Diocletian's reforms in the late 3rd-century when they replaced the earlier and much detested frumentarii (see above) The central imperial administration still needed couriers, however, and the agentes in rebus seemingly filled this role.

Their title translates as ‘Those Active in Matters’, an ambiguous description that may hint at the multiplicity of tasks they may have been called upon to perform. Originally operating as dispatch carriers, they eventually assumed a variety of duties under the jurisdiction of the magister officiorum (Master of the Offices). The organisation survived into the Byzantine Empire, being eventually abolished sometime in the early 8th-century AD, as most of the magister's functions were taken over by the logothetēs tou dromou (Kazhdan, 1991, pp. 36-37).

The agentes in rebus were formed into a militarised schola (‘imperial guard unit’) of the palace in common with other public services of the Dominate. As a militia, the five ranks of agentes were derived from those of junior cavalry officers of the late Roman army: equites, circitores, biarchi, centenarii and ducenarii (Kelly, 2004, 20, 40). Two were appointed to each province in AD 357, one in AD 395 and more again after AD 412. According to Codex Justinianeus (the Code of Justinian, XII.20.4) the agentes enjoyed immunity from prosecution in both the civil and criminal courts, unless otherwise sanctioned by the Master of Offices. Senior agentes were regularly appointed to the post of princeps officii (the ‘chief of staff’ or ‘permanent secretary’) of the praetorian prefectures, the urban prefectures in Rome, and the dioeceses [5] across the Empire thereby exercising control over these departments' bureaucracy and reducing its independence (Kelly, 2004, 96, 210).

As for their function, the 6th-century historian Procopius notes:

‘The earlier Emperors, in order to gain the most speedy information concerning the movements of the enemy in each territory, seditions or unforeseen accidents in individual towns, and the actions of the governors and other officials in all parts of the Empire, and also in order that those who conveyed the yearly tribute might do so without danger or delay, had established a rapid service of public couriers.’ (Procopius, Secret History, XXX)

This is essential the role ascribed to the aforementioned frumentarii, but as couriers their duties included the supervision of the roads and inns of the cursus publicus (public postal system), the carrying of letters, or verifying that a traveller was carrying the correct warrant (evectio) while using the cursus. Further duties assigned to the agentes included the role of customs officers, the supervision of public works and the billeting of soldiers (Kazhdan, 1991, pp. 36-37). They were also used to supervise the arrest of senior officials as required, to escort senior Romans into exile, and even to assist in the enforcement of government regulation of the church (Sinnegan, 1959, 248). Ammianus Marcellinus and Procopius also noted their use as ambassadors on several occasions (Sinnegan, 1959, 249).

Other tasks included supervising the provincial bureaucracy and delivering Imperial commands, often staying in the area to ensure their implementation. Being outside the control of the provincial governors, some agentes, the curiosi, were appointed as inspectors (Kazhdan, 1991, pp. 36-37), for which they gained a reputation for being some form of secret police (Jones & Tomlin, 2015). Yet the vast majority of agentes operated quite openly and thus claims of them actually being a ‘secret police force’ are certainly exaggerated (Kelly, 2004, 207).

Their routine assignments brought agentes into contact with matters of great concern to the imperial court. Given that they reported back to the court on everything they saw or heard on their varied missions, the agentes must have performed an intelligence function in the broadest modern sense of the term (Kazhdan, 1991, pp. 36-37). This role, as well as their extraordinary power, made them feared.

Beneficiarii  Most modern armies have hierarchical rank structures, with officers and soldiers typically identified by their rank. Ordinary soldiers, for example, can be ‘privates’ but they also can be ‘Riflemen’, Guardsmen’, ‘Troopers’, ‘Gunners’ and so on. To confuse matters sometimes they can be identified by their specialisation such as ‘Craftsmen’ in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME), ‘Signaller’ in the Royal Signals, or ‘Drummer’, ‘Trumpeter’, ‘Bugler’, ‘Piper’ and ‘Musician’ in various military bands and other units. Given that the Roman army has tended to be the model for modern armies it is tempting to equate ranks and positions across the centuries. Attempts to align the ranks of the Roman army with its modern descendants is fraught with problems. There are some parallels at the higher levels of command. For example, based purely on the number of soldiers under his command in a legion, namely about 5,000, the Legatus legionem is described by some authors as a ‘Brigadier General’ who today typically commands a brigade of roughly equivalent strength [6][7]. As one descends the rank structure, however, the roles and responsibilities increasingly diverge or simply do not correlate.

With that in mind, beneficiarii (sing. beneficiarius) are often assumed to be ‘officers’ in the Roman army below the rank of centurion but this is not really the case. While the title had existed at least from the time of Caesar, by the imperial period a beneficiarius ranked among the principales (who received pay at one‐and‐a‐half times or twice normal legionary rates) and performed administrative duties. A man was appointed beneficiarius through the favour (beneficium) of their commander usually after serving as an immunis [8], and then holding one or more posts in the century, such as officer in charge of the watch (tesserarius), standard‐bearer (signifer), or orderly. Moreover, the rank of each beneficiarius depended on the status of the official to whose office he was attached. These included procurators, senior military officers (both praefecti of auxiliary cohorts and legati legionis had them), the praetorian prefects, or those most commonly found with the title beneficiarii consularis who worked for provincial governors. Regardless of who’s staff they were attached, beneficiarii performed administrative and legal tasks on behalf of their commander; in effect they acted as his aide-de-camp [9]. Beneficiarii could often expect promotion to the centurionate.

Pictured right is a replica of a distinctive class of iron spearhead with broad shouldered blades excavated in Wiesbaden, Germany. It was made by Len Morgan and is shown carried by Juris Trede, both retired members of the Roman Military Research Society (RMRS). Surviving examples of these spears ‘exhibit features such as coper-alloy inlays, silvering, circular or slot perforations, and attached rings’ (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 152). The one shown is decorated with acorns, one at the finial and two attached as pendants [10]. Such spearheads are found carved on monuments erected by and for beneficiarii, frumentarii, and speculatores. It follows, therefore, that such ‘soldiers presumably carried spears as rank insignia while engaged in specialist administrative, supply and policing duties’ (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 153) [11].

References:

Ammianus Marcellinus Liber XXVIII III VIII.

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

Historia Augusta, ‘The Life of Hadrian’, Loeb Classical Library (1921), Available online: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Hadrian/1*.html (accessed March 30th, 2022).

Historia Augusta, ‘The Life of Commodus, Loeb Classical Library (1921), Available online: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Commodus*.html (accessed March 30th, 2022).

Howard, E., (2006), ‘Espionage in Ancient Rome’, historynet.com, Available online (accessed June 5th, 2022).

Jones, A.H.M. & Tomlin, R.S.O., (2015), ‘agentes in rebus’, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Classics.

Kazhdan, A., ed. (1991), ‘Agentes in rebus’, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, C., (2004), ‘Ruling the later Roman Empire’, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Richmond, I. A., (1958), ‘Roman and Native in North Britain’, Chapter V ‘Roman and Native in the Fourth Century’, Nelson, p. 115.

Sinnegen, W.J., (1959), ‘Two Branches of the Roman Secret Service’, The American Journal of Philology, 80 (3), pp. 238–254.

Stevens, C. E., (1955), ‘Hadrian and Hadrian's Wall’, Latomus, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 384-403, referenced in Richmond, op cit.

Endnotes:

1. Under Roman naming conventions a cognomen was a citizen’s third name. Initially, it was a nickname, but lost that purpose when it became hereditary. Subsequently cognomina were used to augment the person’s second name, their gens, to identify a particular branch within a family or family within a clan.

2. The manuscript reading is areanos, which may be a misspelling in antiquity where the ‘c’ was mistaken for an ‘e’. According to Stevens, the term ‘areani’ means ‘people of the sheep-folds’ (Stevens, 1955, 395), and many of the homesteads in the frontier region were indeed sheep-folds (Richmond, 1958, 115).

3. The Great Conspiracy was a year-long state of war and disorder that occurred in Roman Britain near the end of the Roman rule of the island.

4. Flavius Theodosius (died AD 376), also known as Count Theodosius (Latin: Theodosius comes) or Theodosius the Elder (Latin: Theodosius Major), was comes rei militaris per Britanniarum (Commander of the Troops of the Diocese of the Britons) a senior military officer serving Emperor Valentinian I (r. AD 364 - 375) and the western Roman empire. Under his command the Roman army defeated numerous threats and incursions, including the Great Conspiracy (AD 367 - 368) and the usurpation of Valentinus. Theodosius was patriarch of the imperial Theodosian dynasty (r. AD 379 - 457) and father of the emperor Theodosius the Great (r. AD 379 - 395).

5. The praetorian prefectures were the largest administrative division of the late Roman Empire, above the mid-level dioceses and the low-level provinces. In the Late Roman Empire, regional governance grouped provinces into civil dioceses each headed by a vicarius, the representative of praetorian prefects, who directly governed the diocese in which they resided. There were initially twelve dioceses, rising to fourteen by the end of the 4th-century AD. The urban prefecture had a long history dating back to the time of the kings of Rome. The office of the praefectus urbi was tasked with maintaining order within Rome itself, but its powers also extended to the ports of Ostia and the Portus Romanus, as well as a zone of one hundred Roman miles (c. 140 km) around the city.

6. The rank of Brigadier General first appeared in the British army during the reign of King James II (1685 to 1688). Almost interchangeably since its inception, the British simply called the holder a ‘Brigadier’. A warrant of 1705 placed the grade directly below Major General. Some readers may be confused that the next rank up is a ‘Major General’ followed by a ‘Lieutenant General’, after all a ‘Major’ is two ranks above a ‘Lieutenant’. The explanation is, however, quite simple. Just as the British dropped the ‘general’ in ‘Brigadier General’, by the 18th-century they had also quietly dropped the ‘Sergeant’ in ‘Sergeant Major General’, which had been the most junior of the general ranks.

7. The typical NATO standard brigade consists of approximately 3,200 to 5,500 troops.

8. Immunes were legionary soldiers who possessed specialised skills which excused them from routine labour and guard duties. Engineers, artillerymen, musicians, clerks, quartermasters, drill and weapons instructors, carpenters, hunters, and medical staff were all considered immunes. Regardless, these men were still fully trained legionaries and were called upon to serve in the battle lines when needed.

9. An aide-de-camp is a personal assistant or secretary to a person of high rank, usually a senior military, police or government officer, or to a member of a royal family or a head of state. While still trained soldiers, Beneficiarii were immunes closely associated with a high ranking officer and thus unlikely to be called upon to fight unless in extremis.

10. The acorn appears to have been a symbol associated with fertility and the creation of life. In the iconography of rulers, however, it was a reference to their special relationship with powerful gods, who protected them and allowed them to rule using their divine justice. As the representative of emperors, acorns on the beneficarius’ spear are thus symbolic of imperial power.

11. Several online sources quote beneficarii performing the role of ‘military police’. To imply the Roman army had military police officers or units as we would understand the terms today has not been substantiated by contemporary written or graphic evidence. Bishop and Coulston do mention a ‘policing’ role but it far from certain that beneficiarii were actively maintaining law and order or enforcing regulations or agreements in the sense of a modern police force’s role. So, while beneficiarii were in the military and perhaps policed rules and regulations administratively on behalf of a high ranking officer, it is probably wrong to think of them as ’military police’.

Kitchenalia: Roman Soldier's Cookware

In an earlier article, we challenged the idea that Roman soldiers cooked farinata, a type of unleavened bread made from chickpea flour, on their shields (link here). Given that Roman shields (Latin scutae; sing. scuta) were typically made of wood this is highly unlikely and at best a myth. So, if not using their shields, then what utensils might the average Roman soldier carry to cook with?

Roman army mess tin

Trajan's column in Rome depicts soldiers carrying objects similar to the one pictured (right). They are thought to be ‘mess tins’ (a much more modern military term) or saucepans used both for cooking and for eating from. Today they are frequently referred to as patera [1], but this is possible a misnomer.

In his account of The Jewish War, Flavius Josephus [2] records that, in addition to three days rations, each Roman soldier carried ‘a saw, a basket, a pick and an axe, as well as a strap, a bill-hook and a chain’ (Goldsworthy, 2003, 135). The ‘bill-hook’ may well have been a sickle for reaping crops. Regardless, Josephus’ statement is supported by a scene on Trajan's Column, pictured right, that depicts legionaries carrying their kit over their shoulders on a pole (Latin: furca). This consisted in part of a string-bag for forage, a metal cooking-pot (situla) and a ‘mess-tin’.

Examples of the latter have been discovered in most parts of the Empire (Davies, 2011). Now housed in museums, most paterae are made of cast bronze, often tin-lined, and sometimes with their handles and/or bowls highly decorated. The maker frequently stamped their name on it, as did the object's owner. The analogy with modern military mess tins seems obvious, but these pans were used in far wider contexts, such as in kitchens and in religious observances for making libations.

Libation  In the material culture of classical antiquity, to the ancient Greeks a phiale is a shallow ceramic or metal libation bowl. In Latin the same object is named patera (pl. paterae) The most numerous were small plates of the common red earthenware onto which an ornamental pattern was drawn. Numerous specimens may be seen in the British Museum, and in other collections of ancient ceramic vases. The more valuable paterae were metallic, being chiefly of bronze, although wealthier families may have had one of silver. Libation bowls often have a bulbous indentation (omphalos, ‘bellybutton’) centrally underneath to facilitate holding them, and typically have no handles or feet. Although the two terms may be used interchangeably, particularly in the context of Etruscan culture, phiale is more common in reference to Greek forms, and patera in Roman settings (which should not be confused with the Greek (Πατέρας) patéras meaning ‘father’ and the Latin equivalent pater). In Roman art, the libation is shown performed at an altar, mensa (sacrificial meal table), or at a tripod. It was the simplest form of sacrifice, and could be a sufficient offering by itself.

Cooking pot

Also mentioned in Josephus’ description is a situla (pl. situlae). From the Latin word for bucket or pail, the term is used in both archaeology and art history to describe a variety of elaborate bucket-shaped vessels dating from the Iron Age to the Middle Ages. Usually fitted with a handle, all types of situlae may be highly decorated, most characteristically with reliefs in bands or friezes running round the vessel. A more utilitarian, undecorated, tin-lined version (pictured right) was more likely carried by Roman soldiers as a cooking pot.

 

Folding Frying Pan

While Josephus specifically mentions soldiers carrying paterae and situlae, archaeological evidence also suggest they used other items of cookware. Pictured right is our splendid replica of a late Roman frying pan or skillet made by Len Morgan. Earlier dated pans tend to have a fixed handle much like the patera already discussed, which gave rise to them being named as such. The original iron version with a folding handle, upon which the replicas is based, was found near the fort Gelduba (Krefeld-Gellep, Germany) and dates from the 3rd-century AD. A similarly dated folding handle pan, made for a soldier of the Roman army in Wales, is housed in the National Roman Legion Museum, Caerleon. The folding handle makes perfect sense in a military context as it minimises the space needed to carry it.

The replica’s handle is attached by a single barrel hinge and pin to an integral tang, as shown in the bottom image (above right). The pan has a spout to drain off fat, just like the originals. It is made of 1 mm thick steel and measures approximately 235 mm wide, 630 mm long with the handle extended or 360 mm folded. The pan’s depth is approximately 25 mm and it weighs 1.25 kg.

 
References:

Davies, R. W., (2011), ‘The Roman Military Diet’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldsworthy, A., (2003), ‘The Complete Roman Army, London: Thames and Hudson.

Endnotes:

1. To confuse matters, pa′tera was also the name given to round dishes, small plates or saucers which, according to Pliny (Natural History, XXX.8 s21), were sometimes used in cooking, an operation more commonly performed in pots [olla] and basins or bowls. They could also be used at meals to eat upon or to serve food. The use of paterae at meals no doubt gave origin to the employment of them in sacrifices. On these occasions they held either solid food or any liquid intended to be poured out as a libation. We find paterae frequently represented in conjunction with the other instruments of sacrifice upon coins, gems, altars, bas-reliefs, and the friezes of temples.

2. Flavius Josephus (c. AD 37 – c. AD 100) was a first-century Romano-Jewish historian. He initially fought against the Romans in the First Jewish-Roman War (AD 66-70) but surrendered to the forces led by the future emperor Vespasian in AD 67. Subsequently, having defected to the Roman side, Josephus set about recording Jewish history with special emphasis on The Jewish War which, written c. AD 75, recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation and includes his account of the siege of Masada.

Whistling Death!

Burnswark Hill Approaching across the gentle surrounding Dumfriesshire countryside it is hard to miss the brooding eminence of Burnswark Hill. Rising to nearly 305 m (1,000 ft) it is one of the most prominent landmarks of the Solway basin (see below).

Crowning the table-top summit are the remains of the ramparts protecting a 17-acre hillfort. This hillfort is, in turn, flanked to the North and South by two Roman camps, both of which are unusual in design. The northern camp has an elongated form atypical of the standard Roman army practice, while the south camp, more conventional in shape, was furnished with three wide gateways facing up the hill. Each of these is protected by a large tumulus-like earthwork collectively known as the "Three Brethren". After extensive excavations in 2016, Dr John Reid of the Trimontium Trust commented: "This configuration of Roman camps straddling a hillfort is unique in Britain, and attempts to understand its significance have provoked considerable controversy for over half a century" [1].

Practice camp or siege work? For the best part of two hundred years the Roman earthworks were identified as siege camps. In the 1960s a new theory proposed that the camps were "practice" works and thus provided tangible evidence for the Roman army’s famous training regime. As Reid points out: "It is not difficult to see how this practice theory arose. Many archaeologists in the 1950s and 1960s were ex-military men with a grounding in the Classics and close associations with the training activities of the British Army" [1].

To provide one famous tangential example. not necessarily invested in the Burnswark story, consider that iconic British archaeologist of the twentieth century, Sir Mortimer Wheeler. Recognised as one of our most important archaeologists, he had specialised in the Romano-British period before being commissioned into the Royal Artillery for the duration of World War One and later World War Two. During the inter-war years, however, Wheeler turned his attention to the late Iron Age hill-fort of Maiden Castle near to Dorchester in Dorset, where he excavated for four seasons from 1934 to 1937. The interpretation of the site was clearly heavily influenced by his military background and, being adept at generating publicity, his views remained the dominant ones for many years. In time, however, many of Wheeler's specific interpretations of Maiden Castle and of other archaeological sites were discredited or reinterpreted. Yet, Wheeler's championing of archaeology, encouraging public interest in it through the medium of television and radio, makes it easy to see how the training camp interpretation of Burnswark proposed by similar ex-military men became fact in both popular and academic literature.

Sling-shot bullets Over the years the arguments in favour of both training and actual warfare have steadily multiplied but, as is so often the case, many observations have proven susceptible to conflicting readings [1]. Leaving aside such arguments, it is significant for present purposes that numerous lead sling-bullets, stone ballista-balls, and other elements of corroded Roman military hardware had been recovered in earlier excavations at the site [2]. Prior to the 2015 Burnswark Project, of the 130 lead sling-bullets previously recovered, only two main types were recognised: Type I, essentially a lemon shape (above, middle row), and Type II resembling an acorn (above, top row) - a symbol the Romans considered lucky. These two types are common finds at Roman army battle sites in Europe. The Type I's are typically the largest weighing up to 60 grams (2 ounces) [3].

Of these, the rarer acorn-shaped bullets were almost exclusive to a 50-mile radius around Burnswark Hill [1]. These beautifully cast bullets weighed an average of 50 grams. They were predominantly recovered from the East and central South facing hillfort gateways, with a handful also found in the southern Roman camp [1]. In 2017, National Geographic [4] reported on the excavations at Burnswark and that "recent experiments conducted in Germany showed that a 50 gram Roman bullet hurled by a trained slinger has only slightly less stopping power than a .44 magnum bullet fired from a handgun." Other tests have shown that, in the hands of an expert, a heavy bullet or stone hurled from a sling could reach speeds of up to 100 mph (160 kph) [3] and "revealed that a trained slinger could hit a target smaller than a human being from 130 yards [120 metres] away" [4].

Whistling death As impressive as these statistics are, the Burnswark Project had identified a remarkable third, previously unrecognised, slingshot subgroup. Weighing about 30 g (1 oz), each of the bullets had been drilled with a hole, approximately 5mm (0.2") in diameter and about 5mm deep. Theories on what the hole was for abounded until the field-testing of replica slingshot produced another, equally remarkable, explanation for these cavities.

Two extraordinary facts concerning these small bullets with holes (now dubbed Burnswark Type III's) also emerged. First, being smaller they could be successfully slung in groups of three or four to create a form of grapeshot [3].

The current thinking is that Type III's were used in this manner in close-quarter skirmishing with an enemy (Reid 2016). More intriguingly, the mysterious holes proved to confer an aerophonic quality producing a "whistling" sound in flight. To be slightly more accurate, the replica lead shot made a mechanical buzzing sound eerily reminiscent of an agitated wasp. The simplest explanation for this design modification is that it represents an early form of psychological warfare. As Reid said: "To put it another way, the Roman attackers valued the terror that hearing the incoming bullets would instil in the defenders." Subjected to a hail of these sling-shot bullets, defenders on the hillfort's ramparts would be encouraged to take cover or else risk severe injury or death. With the enemy pinned down physically and psychologically, then the Roman troops could assault and storm Burnswark Hill.

Replicas Inspired by the find we commissioned Dan Towse of Bespoke Pewter to replicate the Burnswark Type III bullet from the interim report on the Burnswark Project published in 2019. From this the average weight and overall dimensions were deduced. Two versions were made, one in lead and a second in lead-free pewter. Each resulting bullet was approximately 23 to 24 mm long but differed in weight. The lead shot are ca. 26 g (0.9 oz) each, while the lead-free pewter are ca. 17 g (0.6 oz).

Unfortunately we are not experienced slingers and will need time to develop the skills needed to repeatedly hurl projectiles in a consistently safe manner and direction. So, as yet we have not been able to experiment with the replicas so do not know whether the "buzzing" effect can be reproduced. In time, and with much practice, we will update this post with what we find out.

Notes:

1. Reid, J.H., (2016), "Bullets, ballistas and Burnswark", Current Archaeology 316.
2. The first was conducted in 1898 on behalf of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and involved surveying the earthworks and "turning over" the site. The second major exploration came in the 1960s, and was directed by the much-respected archaeologist George Jobey. In the 1978 publication of his work, Jobey came down firmly on the side of a practice work.
3. . Metcalfe, T. (2016), "Whistling Sling Bullets Were Roman Troops' Secret 'Terror Weapon'", Live Science, retrieved December 12th, 2020.
4. Pringle, H. (2017), "Ancient Slingshot was as Deadly as a .44 Magnum", National Geographic, retrieved December 12th, 2020.
5. Reid, J.H. & Nicholson, A., (2019), "Burnswark Hill: the opening shot of the Antonine reconquest of Scotland?", in the Journal of Roman Archaeology 32, pp. 459-477.