Roman generals, consuls, imperators and dictators?

In the course of the 2nd century BC Roman generals, ambassadors, consuls and other personalities visited the East, mostly Asia Minor and Egypt, where, as has been shown above, they came into contact with the use of glyptics for personal branding. On the one hand, this resulted in self-promotion through commissioning gems with their own portraits at the workshops of the best Greek gem engravers available (cf. chapter 6.2.1 above). On the other hand, this contact influenced how Roman imperators, generals and dictators perceived themselves and advertised and commemorated their successes. As a result, in Roman Republican glyptics one spots new creations that focus on highlighting a propagandist’s special status (imperium) and praise his values, virtues and achievements. For example, a white-brown agate in Leiden possibly presents a Roman general, imperator or dictator with his left foot placed on a rock (?), holding a parazonium in his left hand and a trophy in his right (cat. no. 6.199, Figure 60). Maaskant-Kleibrink supposes that the gem depicts a hero,¹⁸⁹ which would be totally understandable given his nudity, however, the pose of the figure, which copies a well-established type deriving from the so-called Lateran type of Poseidon/Neptune’s statue,¹⁹⁰ the parazonium he is holding and especially the trophy suggest him to be a Roman heroized victorious general praising his military prowess and maybe comparing himself to Diomedes?¹⁹¹

188 AGDS IV Hannover, nos. 199-200; Vollenweider 1972-1974: 21-22, pl. 13.1-15; Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 10.

189  Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 131.

190  Weiß 2007, no. 158 with informative discussion on identification of various types of that motif and their identifications with Poseidon, Neptune and Octavian-Neptunus.

191  According to Furtwängler, the earliest examples of gems bearing a similar subject-matter appeared in the 3rd century BC, see:

Furtwängler 1896, nos. 468 - although the figure puts its foot on a

Such a piece could be an object of personal adornment and commemorated a military victory. The parazonium was much concerned with Virtus or Mars, so the gem could highlight the particular virtus of the gem’s owner and the favour of the god of war.¹⁹² Noteworthy is that the dagger was a ceremonial weapon indicating a high position in the Roman army and was a sign of dignity.

In later times Roman emperors presented themselves with it on their coins, thus, gems like this one would also certify to the high, perhaps even special social status of their owners.¹⁹³

There are several other pieces similar to the intaglio from Leiden. All of them are made of glass which perhaps suggests that some of them represented one and the same person and were widely distributed or simply copied. Two glass gems from Berlin most likely depict Roman generals as figures standing to the front leaning on a lance and holding a parazonium in their left hands (cat. nos 6.200-201, Figure 61). They are recognised as such due to the cuirass they wear. Another example is preserved in the Kestner Museum in Hannover. It is a yellowish-green glass gem showing the same type of figure, but like on the stone from Leiden, he places his foot on a rock (cat. no. 6.202). Finally, a brown glass gem from Geneva presents a naked figure in profile to the left also leaning on a spear and holding a parazonium in the left hand (cat. no. 6.203).

Regarding those representations, Vollenweider suggested that the figures hold a sceptre, but this seems to be an overinterpretation because similar objects are usually recognised as spears (see below). She also suggested that several portrait gems are related to this group but this is unlikely as the heads are too schematised unless one focuses on the function, not the identity (cf. chapter 7.4.1).¹⁹⁴ Overall, it is tempting to propose the gems in question to be some of the first attempts of Roman generals, imperators or dictators – people who held considerable military power in their hands – to be depicted on those objects. Their images could be delivered to their followers through such gems and they could have commemorated their triumphs that way. Most of these gems are made of glass which would have suggested a serial production, but the number of preserved specimens is strikingly small. Two of the pieces (Geneva and Hannover) originally were a part of collections formed in Italy which indicates those glass

dolphin instead of a prow and probably holds the Palladion, thus it might be Diomedes? 526 – which possibly also presents Diomedes?

and 1439 is another very early example in the Berlin collection with an interesting inscription: L ANTON SALVIVS – L(ucius) Anton(ius) salvivus – long life to Lucius Antonius?

192  The iconography of the gem could be explained as Mars with parazonium and trophy, but the pose of the figure is unusual for the god and he does not wear a helmet or any other military attribute.

193  For instance: RIC II Trajan 642 (sestertius of Trajan, AD 114-117);

RIC V.2, no. 306 (bronze coin of Diocletian).

194  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 43-44.

gems to be produced in Italy, possibly in Rome itself (cf.

chapter 11). The ringstone now in Leiden is engraved in a distinctive Campanian-Roman style used in the workshops located in central Italy.¹⁹⁵ All the mentioned gems can be roughly dated to the 2nd century BC and since no findspots are known, their chronology cannot be more precise and neither it is possible to identify the people presented on them.

Although the preceding group of gems is problematic due to its ambiguous iconography, there is another group of gems presenting Roman generals, imperators or dictators in a military setting, namely with trophies.

In Leiden, a victorious Roman general standing to the front with a trophy on the side and a big shield is engraved upon a large bright red carnelian (cat. no.

6.204, Figure 62). Beyond the shadow of a doubt this is an exceptional piece. The gem itself is exceedingly large and the figure depicted is a mortal, not a hero or god since he wears a mantle arranged in large drapery and his pose resembles the Hellenistic type.¹⁹⁶ However, his nudity suggests heroization. The trophy erected to his side and the gesture that the man makes towards the shield allows us to identify him with a triumphant Roman general, who possibly compared or identified himself with Alexander the Great.¹⁹⁷ Another interesting example is an intaglio found in Bonn, which also presents a triumphant Roman general standing next to a trophy, possibly in the guise of Alexander the Great due to his pose on the spear (cat.

no. 6.205). The same subject appears on a light green glass gem in Copenhagen and another young warrior crowns a trophy with a laurel wreath on a carnelian intaglio in London (cat. nos 6.206-208, Figure 63). A slightly different approach to the subject is reflected on a carnelian in Nuremberg, which presents a naked youth sitting on a rock with spear and shield and a trophy erected in front of him (cat. no. 6.209). This gem is dated to the 2nd century BC and the naked figure might be a heroized Roman general as Achilles since the Gorgoneion appears on his shield.¹⁹⁸ However, the most striking example of an early Roman propaganda practiced by a general, imperator or dictator is an orange carnelian from Berlin, once a part of the Dressel collection (cat. no. 6.210, Figure 64). This minutely engraved intaglio shows a Roman general handing over a legionary standard (signum) to the god Mars holding a trophy. Atop of the standard is a legionary eagle, not a woodpecker as Weiß suggests.¹⁹⁹ The gem is dated to the early 1st century BC and I could not find a parallel

195  On the gems executed in the Campanian-Roman style see:

Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978: 108-109; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 97-98.

196  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 42-43.

197  Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978, no. 1154. Compare this image with a gem from Berlin executed in the Augustan period which is may depict Augustus as Alexander (Furtwängler 1896, no. 2299 and cf. chapter 10.6).

198  Weiß 1996, no. 232.

199  Weiß 2007, no. 35.

to it in the corpus of Roman Republican gems. This exceptional piece testifies to the extraordinary bond between a mortal and god which has been highlighted here by the legionary standard as an object that is a subject of the action between the figures. It illustrates the dedication of the gem’s owner to the care of Mars, patron of the Roman army. The intaglio suggests that because the commander offers his military troops the protection of Mars (symbolised by handing over the standard) he is going to be granted a victory (Mars holds a trophy). The gem could have been used as a personal amulet, but on the other hand, its propagandistic value must have been considerable too. The propagandist would be praised for his special connection with the deity and his authority would rise among his comrades in the army. The gem also illustrates the intimate relationship between the gem’s sitter and the god reflecting his pietas erga deo.

Two of these come from Bergau and Dressel collections, which were formed in Italy, more specifically in Rome and this might indicate they were produced in the city. Other examples, according to their style, were also cut in central Italy. Perhaps then those gems were objects commemorating conquests of the Roman army with special regard to military and political leaders.

Although they remain unidentified, it is plausible that the intaglios were produced on the occasion of their triumphs celebrated in Rome.

The idea that gems depicting triumphant Roman generals were issued to commemorate their triumphs is even more clear on the next examples. A yellowish-brown glass intaglio from Nijmegen presents a warrior wearing cuirass and helmet, leaning on a long spear with a shield in his right arm. Before him at his feet is another cuirass (cat. no. 6.211, Figure 65). Maaskant-Kleibrink recognises here a heroic-warrior, an extremely popular motif existing in early Roman Republican glyptics in many variants.²⁰⁰ However, this one seems special, since the figure presents spolia he won from his opponent. In fact, there are not many close analogies to this specific scene (cat. nos 6.212-213). Such a motif would be suitable for self-presentation since it is focused on the person depicted: it highlights his virtus and contemplates his success in combat and perhaps only in a broader sense in war. Military prowess was something which a Roman should be proud of in particular, therefore, it was a subject especially suitable for display on a personal ring.

Less spectacular but of similar importance are representations of armed Roman warriors. There are many variants where figures are naked, and thus probably heroized (alternatively these are young soldiers exercising as athletes did which could also

200  Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 40.

explain the nakedness) or simply presented with their military equipment. In Paris there is a carnelian with a Roman soldier or general standing with spear and shield to the front with head turned to the left (cat.

no. 6.214, Figure 66). As Vollenweider suggested, this as well as many similar gems might have been related to the wars that Rome conducted in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC during the conquest of Italy and beyond.²⁰¹ It could be a common practice to parade with a ring highlighting physical strength, military skills and successes as well as commemorating a person’s input into the conquests or simply membership of the army, which was highly valued those days. Single figures seem refer to self-presentation and most of them should not be recognised as propaganda pieces. Motifs of these kinds exist both on gemstones and glass gems and the latter, as cheaper versions, testify to the common use of these gems among soldiers (cf. also discussion in the chapter 6.1 above). Yet, sometimes self-advertisement takes a more elaborate form and the warrior is probably being compared to a Greek hero. The key to heroization seems to be nakedness, but it is mostly incomplete as the figures often wear tunics on their hips. There are not many gems presenting such a variant and it is plausible that they were distinctive, perhaps reserved for high-rank officers? In Oxford, there is a sard presenting a naked warrior or a Roman general resting his right foot on a fallen column or a rock, grasping a spear in his left hand and holding a sword in his right (cat. no. 6.215). Several glass pieces from the Geneva collection are especially interesting since they show a naked heroized Roman general leaning on a long object which Vollenweider recognised as a sceptre and thus supposed that the gem owner compared himself to Jupiter, but I believe this to be an overinterpretation and the object is simply a spear (cat. nos 6.216-218).²⁰² In Göttingen there is another glass gem presenting a similar approach to the subject (cat. no. 6.219, Figure 67) and a close analogy is a brown glass gem in a private collection (cat. no. 6.220), apparently moulded from the same matrix? An interesting variation is a carnelian in Leiden presenting possibly a Roman general or warrior on a prow (cat. no. 6.221, Figure 68). All these gems exhibit similarities in their forms, styles and subject and should be dated from the late 3rd to early 1st centuries BC. The pieces from Paris, Geneva and Oxford come from collections formed in the 19th century in Rome, so there is a good probability that the whole class was produced in local workshops in the city or maybe more broadly in Italy (cf. chapter 11).

The next motif that possibly refers to self-presentation of Roman generals, high-rank officers, imperators, dictators or simply soldiers from the equites class are figures standing next to their horses (cat. nos

6.222-201  Vollenweider and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 7.

202  Vollenweider 1972-1974, pl. 41.5.

230). This type probably derives from representations of Dioscuri and might have had a social-military significance.²⁰³ It occurs on both gemstones and glass gems. While the production of the latter seems considerable, it indicates that the type was commonly used not only by high-rank members of the Roman army, but also ordinary soldiers. A glass gem imitating banded agate from Hannover is of special interest because the general holds a legionary standard which allows us to identify this subject as related to Roman army without question (cat. no. 6.227, Figure 69). In Perugia there are two good studies of this subject: one on a carnelian and one on a glass gem (cat. nos 6.222-223). Similarly to the previous categories, in this type cuirassed and naked figures also exist, like on the gems from Vienna, Berlin, Hannover, and the art market (cat.

nos 6.224-226 and 6.228-230, Figure 70).

The last motif that seems related to the previous ones is a representation of a Roman general galloping on his horse. In some instances, the gems may reproduce equestrian statues that were placed on Forum Romanum and elsewhere. This seems to be the case of a carnelian intaglio from Krakow which shows a rider on a horse in profile to the left wearing a tunic across his body and a pilos on his head; he raises his right hand and is holding a spear in the left one behind him (cat.

no. 6.231, Figure 71).²⁰⁴ The gesture of salutation or greeting is typical for equestrian statues and similar representations occur on Roman Republican coins, for instance, on a denarius of L. Marcius Philippus minted in 113–112 BC or a denarius of L. Marcius Philippus struck in 56 BC.²⁰⁵ Sometimes, the figures are depicted with military equipment. Many of these gems are made of glass which on the one hand suggests they were produced in large quantities for legionaries (cat.

nos 6.232-234). On the other hand, some examples are peculiar like the gem from Hannover, which shows a horse rider with a spear and legionary standard (cat.

no. 6.235, Figure 72). The latter attribute allows us to identify him as a Roman general or high-rank officer and must have been a distinctive feature of this intaglio making it an exceptional item. Furthermore, scenes presenting men riding a biga or quadriga on the one hand might simply be related to the circus games, but on the other hand they can be related to the triumphs and other celebrations of military victories (cat. nos 6.236-237). Among these there are representations of Roman generals, imperators or dictators that involve also divine elements. A good example of that is a fragment of a glass gem in Copenhagen engraved with a victorious Roman standing with a spear beside his horse to the left and behind him there is Roma,

203  Vitellozzi 2010, no. 340.

204  Gołyźniak 2017, no. 140.

205  RRC, nos. 293/1 and 425/1 respectively. For a more detailed discussion of a possible equestrian prototype for the motif, see: RRC:

448-449.

city goddess of Rome (cat. no. 6.238, Figure 73). The special bond between a propagandist and the goddess supporting him has been successfully highlighted here.

Such a piece presents him as a leader acting under the auspices of the personification of the state. It is not a coincidence the goddess is Roma since the intaglio fits well into the overall trend of promotion of state issues (cf. chapter 6.3.4).²⁰⁶

Regarding equestrians, there is one recurring representation. It is a galloping horseman in a three-quarter back view. He wears a chlamys, has short, curly hair and holds a whip in one hand while the second grasps reins or spears. Sometimes he holds a round shield in the arm as well. This common motif exists on both gemstones and glass gems (cat. nos 6.239-253, Figures 74-75). It was already Furtwängler who suggested the motif to be related to one of the wars the Romans conducted during the late 3rd and 2nd century BC.²⁰⁷ Vollenweider took one step forward and initially proposed to link this motif precisely with the Second Punic War and identified the rider as Scipio Africanus who was the most popular military leader those days.²⁰⁸ Over the decades scholars either accepted Vollenweider’s vision or limited themselves to describe the basic features of this peculiar motif.

Later, Vollenweider changed her mind and decided to date that motif to the end of the 2nd and early 1st century BC. This time, she suggested that the rider might be related to the Social War (91-88 BC).²⁰⁹ This particular case requires a deeper analysis.

Overall, the group of gems engraved with the subject in question is relatively big and there seem to be some distinctive objects within it that help us understand the peculiar and vague iconography. Almost all the pieces are homogenous in terms of the style which should be defined as Campanian-Hellenistic-Roman. This is due to the type combines Campanian pelleting engraving with Hellenistic composition and some purely Roman elements.²¹⁰ Zwierlein-Diehl observes that in terms of style the type has much in common with Roman coins executed in the Campanian-Roman manner.²¹¹ However, in coinage of the 3rd, 2nd and early 1st centuries BC I do not find any iconographical parallel and the hypothesis that the image should be linked with Scipio Africanus seems far-fetched. In any case, analysis of style but also the collections’ provenance (cf. chapter 11) points to a good number of the gems bearing this motif being cut in Italy, most likely, its central or southern part.

206  Maderna-Lauter 1988: 443; Vollenweider 1972-1974: 14.

207  Furtwängler 1900, vol. III: 284.

208  Vollenweider 1972-1974: 58-60, pl. 39.2-5, 7 and 11-12; 1979, nos.

94 and 96-99.

209  Vollenwedeir and Avisseau-Broustet 2003, no. 12.

210  Maaskant-Kleibrink 1978: 108-109.

211  Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 105. See stylistically close representations of Dioscuri on denarii struck by C. Servilius in 136 BC – RRC, no. 239/1.

Furtwängler observed that some of them could be based on a Greek painting brought to Rome by C. Popilius.²¹² The equestrian statue installed on the Capitoline Hill by Fabius Maximus who defeated the Carthaginians in 209 BC at Tarent has been suggested as a potential source

Furtwängler observed that some of them could be based on a Greek painting brought to Rome by C. Popilius.²¹² The equestrian statue installed on the Capitoline Hill by Fabius Maximus who defeated the Carthaginians in 209 BC at Tarent has been suggested as a potential source