• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
Download
 
CAVALRY EQUIPMENT OF THE ROMAN ARMY IN THE FIRST CENTURY A.D.
M.C. BishopINTRODUCTIONThe main aim of this paper is to identify and describe the elementsthat went together to make up Roman military horse (or riding) harnessin the first century A.D.
1
Closely linked with this, however, will be aconsideration of just how much the archaeological evidence can tell usabout the military use of mounts.
2
It is to be hoped that the presentwork will at least serve to generate new interest in cavalry equipmentand provoke discussion about the functions of its various components.There are two main source areas for the study of Roman militaryhorse equipment: monuments depicting its use and artefacts recoveredfrom the archaeological record.Pictorial evidence, most notably that represented by sculpture, canbe used to show how the various elements of horse harness functioned asa whole. The value of such depictions is hotly debated, but it isgenerally true that funerary monuments tend to give a more accuratepicture than official sculpture, although both categories vary widely inquality.
3
Two types of tombstone, the 'Reiter' and the 'Totenmahl' arecharacteristic of the first century A.D. (although not exclusively so):
4
these show, in the first instance, the deceased cavalryman riding hismount in combat, often with a cowering barbarian being trampled beneaththe horse;
5
the other type depicts the dead man enjoying a funerarybanquet in the afterlife in an upper scene, whilst his horse is paradedin all its equipment in a lower.
6
Totenmahl depictions usually show thehorse being controlled from behind by means of long-reins and with itssaddle covered by an overblanket, whilst the trooper's calo carriesspare spears (javelins?). As has been noted, the quality could vary andthere are cases where the sculptor probably did not understand hissubject matter, but some of the best pieces, like the stone of T.Flavius Bassus at Köln, appear to be detailed documents of the way inwhich horse harness functioned.
7
As well as private funerary monuments, mention must be made ofofficial sculpture, if only to sound the now customary note of cautionabout interpreting it too literally. It is certainly important toappreciate that Trajan's Column, which is traditionally regarded as aprime source of information about the Roman army,
8
includes a number ofclues to the fact that it is not a useful source for the study ofcavalry equipment, and these will be outlined later in some detail. Muchthe same is true of most of the major monuments of the city of Rome,
9
but examination of some provincial sculpture of an official nature ismore productive. The triumphal arch at Orange,
10
which is probablyTiberian, is a good example of this, with important details aboutharness being confirmed by the static weapons friezes, whilst the battlescenes provide an interesting comparison with the depiction of Romancavalry on the Rhineland tombstones.67
Originally published in Coulston, J.C. (ed.) 1988:
Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers. Proceedings of the Fourth Roman Military Equipment Conference
, BAR International Series
394
, Oxford
 
Archaeological evidence is usually manifested either as individualitems of equipment, recovered during the process of excavating a site,or hoards of horse equipment which have been gathered for somepurpose.
11
Site finds tend to include a wide range of types of any givenfitting, whilst hoards often have a narrower stylistic range. A largeproportion of published site finds come from excavations wherestratigraphy was inadequately understood and, frequently, where thespatial distribution of finds was not considered to be of interest.
12
Site finds can also usually be fitted within a broad date range for asite, and nowadays, as excavation (and recording) techniques improve,can be placed within a narrower chronological bracket.The fact that a number of hoards of Roman horse equipment have beenrecovered is extremely important for the interpretation of horseharness. Such hoards include the collections from Doorwerth and Xanten,Fremington Hagg, and Canterbury.
13
The dating of these assemblages isoften problematic, but their value in interpreting the functionalrelationships of the various elements is inestimable.REPRESENTATIONAL EVIDENCEA comparatively large number of figured first-century tombstoneswhich show mounted soldiers have survived. Some show the harness ingreat detail, most are indifferent, whilst a few are positively crude inthe standard of their depiction of detail. The evidence presented isequivocal, as the following selective survey of some of the moreimportant pieces shows.
14
Unfortunately, some details are not very clearon photographs and some tombstones, such as that of Primigenius, do notreproduce at all well.
15
1. Flavinus (Reiter, ala Petriana)
16
HexhamA stone with probable phalera junctions. Both junctions have strapspassing horizontally beneath the saddle blanket and no distinct saddleis depicted. No pendants are shown, but the pendant straps at bothjunctions have lunate terminals. There are no clear saddle pommels andthe saddle blanket (which appears to be fringed) does not hang below thehorse's belly. A breastband is worn, as is a neck strap. Late Flavian.2. Rufus Sita (Reiter, cohors VI Thracum)
17
GloucesterThis tombstone has a phalera junction on the haunch, but a simpleband at the front, which passes horizontally beneath the rider's thighOne strap passes from the rear junction to the saddle. There areno pendants and no saddle blanket or bridle are depicted (suggestingthat they may have been added in paint). Claudio-Neronian.68
 
69
Fig.1:
Relief from tombstone of T. Flavius Bassus.
Fig.2:
T. Flavius Bassus. Detail of haunch junction, showing haunchstraps passing beneath saddle pommel. K
ö
ln Museum.
of 00

Commenting has been disabled.