Roman state propaganda: subjects related to wars and conquests (Gallic Wars, Punic Wars, Greek and

Macedonian Wars, Social War 91-88 BC)

In the course of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC Roman society became increasingly militarised which is reflected on engraved gems. Subjects related to the wars that Rome conducted first on the Italian Peninsula and later beyond were often picked up either by commissioners of the gems or their carvers. Gems presenting fighting scenes between the Romans and barbarians were surely the favourite objects of this kind among soldiers. Within this group, there might have been individuals who wanted to highlight their military prowess, exceptional merits and successes on the battlefield. Such acts may be counted as self-advertisement since the goal was to present oneself in a positive way with the intention of making an impression on other members of the community. Besides, the

212  Furtwängler 1900, vol. III: 284.

213  Zazoff 1983: 278-279.

214  Gołyźniak 2017, no. 139.

military world in Roman society constituted a separate social class and if someone truly wanted to manifest his allegiance to it because he was proud of being a part of that community, the best way to do that was to put an image upon his ring alluding to his profession and military unit or event (a battle or triumph) that could be easily associated with it.²¹⁵ These were the reasons why several individual subjects have been selected and discussed above in detail as I believe many of them could have been produced on the commissions of outstanding individuals. Nevertheless, there are many more far more popular and universal warfare subjects related to the Punic, Gallic, Greek and Macedonian Wars conducted by Rome in the 3rd and 2nd centuries that appear on gems. They were usually illustrated in a form of warriors or cavalry men fighting barbarians, but also scenes of pre- and post-war rituals were of some importance. It is debated whether they had any political significance, and, in this chapter, I would like to put that issue into a test.

Taking images of equestrians for example, it should be remembered that if they appear on engraved gems, they might have represented a higher social status (equites class) and by definition were objects of distinction. This was true either in the Greek and Roman case.²¹⁶ Putting a horse rider on a personal gem could simply be an act of self-presentation since this kind of activity was closely related to hunting and required special skills.²¹⁷ One guesses that some of the cavalry men appearing on Roman Republican gems are related to the wars the Romans conducted from the 3rd to the 1st centuries BC.

Extremely popular are representations of Roman horse riders engaged in combats with Gallic footmen, the so-called celtomachy motif (cat. nos 6.254-273, Figures 76-77). Many of those gems should be dated to the mid-1st century BC and surely reflect fighting during Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul. Some are even supposed to present the dictator himself and those will be discussed later (cf. chapter 8.2.7). Nevertheless, others date to earlier periods and thus perhaps relate, for instance, to the victories of Marius over Teutons and Cimbri in 102-101 BC.²¹⁸ Many of them are made of cheap glass which means they were distributed among or preferred by Roman soldiers.²¹⁹

The Celts are distinguishable due to their typical military equipment, especially, long oval shields.

However, some of the horse riders appearing on gems are Romans fighting with other kinds of barbarians and consequently some scenes seem to be related to other conflicts like the Punic Wars and conflicts with the Greeks and Macedonians (cat. nos 6.274-280, Figures

215  Maderna Lauter 1988: 443.

216  Sagiv 2016: 36.

217  Sagiv 2016: 37-39.

218  Sagiv 2016: 40-41; Zazoff 1983: 297.

219  Vollenweider 1955: 102.

78 and 80). Perhaps those gems commemorate specific victories like the one at Pydna in 168 BC, which was a success of Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus.²²⁰ A peculiar type seems to be a helmeted horse rider with a round shield and spear charging to the left or right who was repeatedly engraved on gemstones and moulded on glass gems (cat. no. 6.281, Figure 81). Exact the same motif appears on the denarius of L. Manlius Torquatus struck in 113 or 112 BC (Figure 79).²²¹ The occurrence of the design in both media suggests the commemoration of a specific event. As Crawford observes, the cognomen of the moneyer and torque on the obverse side make reference to a single-handed victory of T. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus over a Gaul, but this duel was fought on foot so the scene from the reverse remains obscure.²²² Fossing noted a similar depiction to exist on the coins of Larinum in the 3rd century BC.²²³ However, Yarrow makes an interesting remark on the similarity of the rider in question to the ones from the Paullus Monument erected in the Sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi shortly after 167 BC in order to commemorate the Roman victory at the Battle of Pydna.²²⁴ Indeed, the Macedonian riders depicted on the monument use rounded shields and spears and their composition is very close to the one known from gems and the coin of Torquatus. Perhaps, the moneyer made an allusion to the Battle of Pydna in which his ancestor fought.

The gems are more plausible to commemorate this battle or the final Macedonian War in general. Other popular motifs related to the wars Rome conducted mostly in the 2nd century BC are scenes presenting the Romans with their captives or just captives, usually Gallic warriors (cat. nos 6.281-289, Figures 81-82). The motif of a captive Celt is borrowed from Hellenistic art, but if applied to the Roman context, it reflects Roman supremacy over barbarians.

The difficult moments of Roman history were also illustrated in Roman Republican glyptics. For instance, the Second Punic War was a great threat to Rome and seems to have triggered a production of gems with themes that would raise the morale of the people of Rome. Images like oath-taking scenes, sacrifices, Caput Oli and even a goat standing on a prow – all of them might have served one goal, to unite people and assure protection from the gods as well as boost positive thinking towards ending the conflict with good results (cat. nos 6.290-298, Figures 83-86).²²⁵ Some scenes are

220  Zazoff 1983: 279.

221  RRC, no. 295/1 (denarius of L. Manlius Torquatus, 113-112 BC).

222  RRC, no. 295/1.

223  Fossing 1929, no. 250.

224  Yarrow 2018: 51, note 75.

225  Weiβ 2007, no. 321 and 457; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 137. For the various semiotics of the Caput Oli motif, see especially Yarrow 2018:

46-48. Regarding the oath-taking scene, Evans proposes to explain the iconography as related to Aeneas and the mythical Roman alliance with other cities or Sabines or any other alliance in the history of Rome (1992: 54-57).

repeated on coins minted during those particularly difficult moments which strengthens the hypothesis to think about them as a sort of ‘state propaganda’

transmitters (Figure 87).²²⁶ A peculiar example of that phenomenon is Marcus Curtius falling into an abyss on a carnelian in St. Petersburg (cat. no. 6.299, Figure 88).²²⁷ This mythological young Roman offered himself to the gods of Hades for the cause of the commonwealth,²²⁸ and he was a perfect visualisation of self-sacrifice and commitment to the common cause. The motif was not particularly common, which suggests a very private and specific use of this kind of iconography.²²⁹ A glass gem from London featuring armed Roma standing with her left foot on a globe, approached by a winged Victory carrying a wreath and palm branch is another example of ‘state propaganda’ message on gems (cat. no. 6.300, Figure 89). In this instance, the message clearly speaks about the supremacy of the Roman nation and state over others with a further suggestion of the Romans to be predestined to rule the world.

It is noteworthy to remark that there are many more images on gems serving all Romans as unifying symbols of their homeland, some of which faithfully copy coins’

designs. A good illustration of this is the head of Roma motif that was used for coin obverses from the late 3rd to the early 1st centuries BC. It was one of the most common illustrations of the Roman state and exactly the same head appears on engraved gems (cat. nos 6.301-303, Figure 90). The correlation between gems and coins sometimes is close as in the case of the glass intaglio in London which was possibly made after a coin due to the border of dots moulded around Roma’s head (cat. no. 6.303, Figure 90) or a cornelian in Paris (cat. no.

6.301) that faithfully copies the design of the obverse of the denarius minted by P. Licinius Nerva c. 113-112 BC (Figure 91).²³⁰ Another scene referring to the same idea of the Roman state and special divine favour and protection over the Romans is lupa romana motif often presented on gems in the more pastoral context rather than on coins (cat. nos 6.304-305, Figure 92).²³¹ Gems bearing this iconography were consistently produced for a long period of time, but noticeable is the revival of this subject under Augustus due to his promotion of the mythological foundations of Rome (cf. chapter 10.7). Pieces of evidence for combining the two, Roma and lupa romana in one are gems in Berlin collection featuring Roma seated on pile of arms observing the she-wolf suckling the twins and there is an eagle in the field (cat. no. 6.306, Figure 93). Such iconography is the best illustration of Roman patriotism and ‘state propaganda’ and the design was also promoted by an

226  Hannestad 1988: 20; Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, no. 1098; 2007: 104-105.

227  Neverov 1976, no. 78; Zazoff 1983, pl. 86.4.

228  Livy, Ab urbe condita, 7.6.

229  Furtwängler 1900, vol. III: 284-285.

230  RRC, no. 292/1; Yarrow 2018: 44-45.

231  Dardenay 2009 and 2012; Yarrow 2018: 45-46.

anonymous moneyer on a denarius minted c. 115-114 BC (Figure 94).²³²

It is believed that gems presenting various configurations of individual symbols reflect conflicts between the Romans and other nations (cat. nos 6.307-316, Figures 95-98).²³³ Such a view is highly controversial due to there being plenty more plausible alternative explanations of the iconography appearing on those gems. For instance, Vollenweider claimed that a rhyton terminated with a protome of a bull was related to the Macedonian Wars,²³⁴ while I think the gem could simply work as an amulet ensuring abundance and well-being to a person whose private horoscope was Taurus or Capricorn since there are versions of this motif when the rhyton terminates with a protome of a goat (cat. no.

6.308, Figure 95). It is difficult to figure out if a trophy as a sole symbol should signify a specific military success, as Vollenweider claimed, unless it is accompanied with other symbols indicating that or it is being erected by a figure (cat. nos 6.307-311, Figure 96).²³⁵ The latter case could work for a certain Roman as a sort of self-presentation, but having no context available today, it is pointless to even hypothesise on this matter as far as sole symbols of trophy are concerned. Going further with Vollenweider’s proposals, the configuration of a club, bow, arrows and palm branches is more likely to stand for Heracles and his attributes which in my opinion gives amuletic properties to a gem rather than to be a sophisticated reference to the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC (cat. no. 6.312, Figure 97).²³⁶ In contrast to Maaskant-Kleibrink, I believe that a palm tree flanked by cornucopiae was by all means meant to ensure good luck and prosperity to gem’s owner rather than to be an allusion to the Punic Wars (cat. no. 6.313, Figure 98).²³⁷ The few examples evoked here illustrate some common overinterpretations. Similarly, I do not recognise any motifs clearly related to the Gracchi Brothers’ internal Rome conflict even though Vollenweider suggested their possible existence.²³⁸

Consequently, most of the subjects discussed in this sub-chapter were not only used for self-presentation performed by individuals, but they also fit a general trend of the ‘state success’ and Roman imperialism.

Definitely, private objects such as the above-described intaglios testify to the nascent Roman national consciousness and identity. The Romans, proud of

232  RRC, no. 287/1 (denarius of anonymous moneyer, 115-114 BC) and p. 729 for a commentary.

233  Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 43; Vollenweider 1979, nos. 415, 522, 537 and 541.

234  Vollenweider 1979, no. 415.

235  Vollenweider 1979, no. 522.

236  Vollenweider 1979, no. 541.

237  Maaskant-Kleibrink 1986, no. 43.

238  Concerning the Gracchi Brothers’ Roman internal conflict, see:

Vollenweider 1979, no. 474. Regarding themes possibly related to the Social War, see: Vollenweider 1972-1974: 23-24.

their numerous conquests, probably used those images either for patriotic reasons as well as in moments of threats in order to bolster national pride.²³⁹ The observations based on the glyptic material fit general trends in the Roman art. The actions described above should not be treated as regular propaganda unless one treats those objects as highlighting Roman identity and that the people of Rome regarded themselves as superior to other nations. It cannot be assessed if in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC there were figures stimulating production of such pieces or not. The only reliable data appears for 1st century BC political leaders and it is noteworthy that to some of them creation of a special climate for their political activities (stimulation of the impression that thanks to them Rome will be once more a stable and secure state) was crucial for making their propagandistic actions successful. Gems were a part of this phenomenon (cf. chapters 8.2.9, 10.8 and 12).

239  Yarrow 2018: 44-48.

Although there is some evidence that in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC gems were sometimes used for self-presentation and for specific propagandistic activities, such instances are still quite far from the clear-cut definition of propaganda (cf. chapter 4.1). By the turn of the 2nd and 1st centuries BC the situation had dramatically changed, and the first evidence for very clear propaganda actions performed on intaglios and later also cameos occurs. Many of them are mentioned and even sometimes evaluated by ancient writers. For the discussion on the beginnings of propaganda on gems, Sulla’s political activity is of crucial importance. In this chapter I am going to present the role of glyptics in his propaganda as well as show how other contemporary leaders of the Roman political scene employed glyptics to make themselves more recognisable and popular, to enhance their authority as well as demonstrate and commemorate their successes.

7.1. Lucius Cornelius Sulla

In his thorough study of Sulla’s propaganda actions, Ramage touches on all its aspects and investigates all types of archaeological and historical evidence, surprisingly, except for engraved gems. Sulla’s domination is the first period of time when engraved gems are clearly attested asto being used for propaganda purposes. The information testifying to that yields from both, literary and archaeological sources. Sulla is the first Roman about whom we know with all certainty that he intentionally employed gem engravers for his personal motivations to influence others. They could carve gems to popularise his image as well as to commemorate his successes. In this sub-chapter I would like to analyse all those aspects of Sulla’s propaganda on gems and examine also mythological references he could have used on intaglios to advertise himself.

Finally, symbols and their configurations, traditionally regarded as having political meaning, will be critically discussed here as well.

7.1.1. Seals of Sulla

The most powerful ancient record about Sulla as a propagandist using engraved gems for self-promotion comes from literary texts. Pliny in his Historia Naturalis, Plutarch in his Life of Sulla and Life of Marius as well as Valerius Maximus specify that Sulla sealed his documents with an image of himself seated on a raised seat with a bound Jugurtha kneeling beside him while before him kneels Bocchus, offering an olive-branch.¹

1  Pliny, Historia Naturalis, XXXVII.9; Plutarch, Life of Sulla, 3.4;

Plutarch, Life of Marius, 10.5-6; Valerius Maximus, VIII.14.4.

The seal portrays Sulla’s first great victory, in which he ended the Jugurthine War (112-106 BC) and its iconography was most likely based on the sculptural prototype which was a gilded statuary group sent by Bocchus to Rome and installed on the Capitol.² That event enormously boosted his political career and for a nobleman seeking to raise his authority it was a perfect occasion to promote his success. There was no better way to illustrate his exceptional military and political achievement than upon a personal seal. The seal itself as well as the statuary group have not survived, but the seal’s iconography inspired the son of Sulla, Faustus Cornelius Sulla (questor in 54 BC), who in 56 BC minted a denarius presenting exactly the same scene (Figure 99).³ It is suggested that Sulla used this image for some time after his arrival in Rome in 105 BC.⁴ His seal is the first powerful propagandistic message encoded on an intaglio in the Roman Republican period. The value of this gem is beyond measure since Sulla by sealing all his documents, letters etc. reminded the recipients about his achievement and highlighted that he was the designer and main author of the success. For it is important to remember that Sulla was serving under Marius at the time, who took all the public credit for this feat. Putting such an image upon a personal seal was the only option Sulla had for popularising himself and commemorating his achievement even though he was risking a conflict with Marius, as has been said by Plutarch and Valerius Maximus.⁵ According to these writers, Sulla’s seal was an open provocation that might have ended up in a civil war. It seems that Sulla’s propagandistic move was successful since as a result he was credited by many Romans for the victory in the Jugurthine War.⁶ He did not risk an open rebellion against Marius, but gradually undermined his authority in a very sophisticated way using engraved gems. As one sees, intaglios could be powerful and fascinating propaganda tools. The seal is also of crucial importance in the discussion of the matter as to whether the above-mentioned gilded statue presenting the same scene was delivered by Bocchus independently or whether it was Sulla himself who instructed his ally to do so. Giving the fact that Sulla chose the same scene for his personal seal at the same time suggests it was no coincidence and the whole action was a carefully designed propagandistic plan. It was impossible for Sulla to have erected the

2  Plutarch, Life of Sulla, 6.1. However, Flower has suggested that Bocchus took the inspiration for his monumental sculptural group directly from Sulla’s ring device (2006: 113).

3  RRC, no. 426/1.

4  Furtwängler 1900, vol. III: 304; Instinsky 1962: 20; Lapatin 2015: 113;

Maderna-Lauter 1988: 444; Plantzos 1999: 85-86; Vollenweider 1955:

102; 1966: 17-18; Zazoff 1983: 315; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 10.

5  Plutarch, Life of Marius, 10.5; Valerius Maximus, VIII.14.4.

6  Plutarch, Life of Marius, 10.6; Valerius Maximus, VIII.14.4.

statue for himself, so he must have acted through Bocchus’ hands. This showed the Roman dictator as the one to whom external kings subordinate themselves which contributed to his auctoritas. In the case of glyptics, there were no such limits and the image could be used without any restrictions. The statue, due to its prestigious location must also have been approved by the Senate so that both media transmitted a consistent picture in order to disseminate a particular message about its subject that was consecrated by the most important institution of the Roman Republic.⁷

Toso observes that taking such an image as Sulla did as a personal seal was a continuation of an Italic-Roman tradition called self-presentation.⁸ This is very true as the seal image was not only aimed at provoking Marius or commemorating a specific event, but also highlighting Sulla’s virtus, military prowess and other positive features of his character. On the other hand, this act was a kind of precedent which is typical of Sulla,

Toso observes that taking such an image as Sulla did as a personal seal was a continuation of an Italic-Roman tradition called self-presentation.⁸ This is very true as the seal image was not only aimed at provoking Marius or commemorating a specific event, but also highlighting Sulla’s virtus, military prowess and other positive features of his character. On the other hand, this act was a kind of precedent which is typical of Sulla,