FOREWARD
Archaeologists excavate and from these excavations, they produce finds of ancient artefacts, sometimes complete but often
only fragmentary. This is where the fun starts. These finds have to be compared to others, from known contexts, with a view
to understanding their function and establishing their dates. This involves searching through previous publications, in learned
journals that are not always easy to obtain. When this happens, it is very useful to be able to make use of a ‘one-stop’ volume
– a catalogue in fact – where there are many examples listed, together with the main facts about them. This is precisely
what Marco Saliola and Fabrizio Caprini have produced here for the Roman ‘small-arms’ weapon, the pugio.
Were this all they had produced, it would still be a valuable addition to the archaeologist’s set of tools. They have,
however, gone much further than this. They have examined the history of the weapon, its construction, its strengths
and weaknesses as a weapon, its likely use, its artistic representation and they have structured the catalogue around a
useful typology.
In short, I would suggest that they have produced as complete an examination of the pugio as it is possible to achieve.
Mike Thomas
Newport, Monmouthshire,
March, 2012
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
1
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Cover:
Title:
Image: in the foreground:
in the background:
further in the background:
in the far background:
citation by Nonius Marcellus, “De Compendiosa Doctrina”, Book 19;
photo of a pugio from a private collection (photo by the author);
photo of a pugio from the collection
of the Romisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum
(Mainz-Germania) (photo by the author);
photo of a pugio from a private collection (photo by the author);
detail from the stele of Annaius Daverzua,
presently in the collection of the Sclossparkmuseum
(Bad Kreuznach – Germania).
2
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
2
27/05/2012, 16.23
CONTENTS
Introduction
5
FIRST PART – THE WEAPON
chap. I
origins, evolution and classification
chap. II
geographical distribution
chap. III distribution within the army
chap. IV function and use
7
25
35
39
SECOND PART – TECHNOLOGY AND ACCESSORIES
chap. V
construction technology
chap. VI sheaths
47
57
TIRTH PART – HISTORICAL SOURCES
chap. VII iconographical sources
chap. VIII classical citations
chap. IX database of archaeological findings
75
85
103
Conclusions
Bibliography
Acknowledgements
133
135
141
3
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
3
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
4
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
4
27/05/2012, 16.23
INTRODUCTION
century A.D.) is proof of the importance of this dagger.
Such evidence, however, contrasts with the limited
diffusion of the weapon in a precise territorial context that of the “Limes (border) of the Rhine and high Danube”
- rendering the pugio a far from indispensible weapon
in comparison with the gladius, whose use is observed
throughout the Roman world.
The latin term “Pugio” derives from the verb “pungo”
and corresponds with the Greek term “ἐγχειρίδιον”. The
root of the word is “pug” which belongs to a group of
terms with the meaning shock, and in the case of pugio
means “physical blow, given by a sharp point”. It must be
distinguished from the etymology of dagger (“pugnale”
in Italian) which rather derives from “pugnus”, with the
meaning of fist (“pugno” in Italian): the way in which the
weapon was held. In both meanings, pugio and dagger (in
Italian the translation of “dagger” is pugnale), the type of
combat implied is that of “pugna”, that is to say combat
where physical contact is expected between the two rivals:
so-called “hand-to-hand” combat. The word derives from
the Indo-European root “-peu^g”, which means “daggerclub”3, which is proof that the name given to this dagger
is much older than the weapon as we perceive it today,
possibly implying that there are precursors to it unknown
to us at present. The pugio is a unique weapon of its kind,
doubtlessly part of the Roman military culture (apart
from some early models whose Celtiberian origin makes
it difficult to assign the most ancient of them with any
precision: the similarity in form of the daggers and the
sharing of territories of the two peoples raising doubts for
many archaeological finds). It has an unusual handle, with
two pommels, the first of which is at the top and the other
in the centre of the grip, which, despite the technological
changes incurred over the course of four centuries, makes it
easily distinguishable even by a non-expert in this weapon.
It doesn’t have a prominent guard, which excludes a priori
a duel-type purpose, whereas the blade is often waisted,
in the shape of a Weeping Willow leaf, with a variation
in the form which has over time more or less emphasized
its characteristics, often reflecting the evolution of the
“The Romans were victorious over all peoples thanks only
to the execution of their arms. In fact, we can see that it
is by no other means that the Roman people conquered
the world other than by the execution of their arms, their
discipline on the field, and their military experience.”1
Rome has been a reference point in history for many
reasons: for its organisation of the State, for its Art and
Culture, for its Law and much more; to the point of leaving
a profound and permanent mark on both the ancient and
modern western world. However, “if it was capable of
building a vast and lasting empire, it was evidently able to
achieve this thanks to its troops”2, and these troops were
victorious over the people of the time also thanks to their
weapons.
The aim of this book is to examine in depth one of these
weapons, the PUGIO
The pugio (pl. pugiones) is a short weapon of offence
of the Roman army, also famous for being the weapon
with which Julius Caesar was killed, and it represents
in the collective imagination a characteristic weapon of
the Roman legionary. Its rich decoration and the use of
precious metals have given it a legendary air, which has
been favoured by a scarcity of literary sources and the lack
of a clear explanation of its function or the specific use
soldiers made of it.
Due to a lack of in-depth studies which would lead to an
adequate placement of the weapon, the lack of information
regarding the pugio has been filled to this day by simple
deductions on the part of modern authors, which are
frequently no more than personal assumptions.
The persistent presence of pugiones in the Roman
infantryman’s panoply over an uninterrupted period of
almost four centuries, which goes from the Republic (end
of II century B.C) to the crisis of The Empire (mid III
Fig.1: tombstone s by Annaius Daverzus, auxiliary foot soldier of IV Choors Delmatarum, shows us with great clarity the weapon which is the
object of this book, hanging from a beautiful cingulum on the left side of the legionary.
5
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
5
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
gladius. In fact, the symbiosis between the pugio and the
gladius was almost always very close, so much so that we
can state that “Pugio est gladius brevis”4.
Regarding the literary sources of the time, the
phenomenon is summed up by the quotation that “in the
endless biographies on the Roman army, its organisation,
social, cultural and economic aspects, very few studies
have been dedicated to the type of weapons used and their
production”9. Furthermore, military coverage is mainly in
the form of Anglo Saxon and German studies, as if the
most enthusiastic experts in the subject came from those
nations which paradoxically housed the Roman Limes
and, therefore, the greatest number of legions, and in some
ways were subjected to Roman dominance. In any case,
not many authors have decided to study our weapon in
more depth, generally preferring to concentrate on other
components of the Roman panoply or the study of the
army in general.
The best sources of information leading to our knowledge
and understanding of this weapon are represented
by archaeological finds, iconography and literary
documentation, upon which this book has been based in
an attempt to understand its symbolic role and meaning
in antiquity. Known exemplars constitute an exhaustive
object of study and give us quite a complete range of
the various types of construction and places of origin,
suggesting the places where these weapons were most
widely used. The cenotaphs - sepulchral monuments which
did not contain mortal remains - contribute enormously to
our present knowledge, with their detailed representations
of the Miles5. The Romans were not actually accustomed
to entomb their dead soldiers with all their weapons, as
was typical for some peoples, such as the Etruscans and
Celts, and this behaviour has deprived us of an enormous
potential source of finds. In any case, the military
tombstones partly compensate for this loss of information,
by depicting details of clothing and equipment belonging
to the deceased, as well as relating to us by means of the
surviving epitaphs where the Miles was stationed, his
name, and the military corps he belonged to.
Finally, great help has been given to us by way of classical
literature, whose references go from the first century BC
until approximately the XII-XIII century AD. Attentive
study of this allows us to identify precious information
and indications. There are numerous classics authors
who speak about the weapon in question, however, it is
unfortunate that they never give detailed descriptions of
the pugiones and rarely of a fact relating to war in which
the battle technique and the specific use of the weapon are
narrated. This is hardly surprising as the classics authors
never stop to describe any weapon in detail, whether it an
offensive weapon, such as the pugio or the gladius, or a
defensive one, such as the helmet or lorica. Instead, they
go into greater detail regarding the tactical aspect, the
military formation or organisation of the army. Ancient
literary works were, in fact, addressed to high social classes
where, during banquets and in cultural circles (such as the
Club of Scipions), aristocratic and imperialistic ideology
was elaborated, and where discussion was based on an
explanation for Roman superiority over the rest of the
population, or the so-called barbarians. This predominance
was described in heroic feats which made Rome great, as
for example in Polybius’s6 exaltation of the war strategy
used in various punic wars (even if this was by means
of betrayal and lack of respect for signed treaties), the
realisation of impossible deeds and feats, such as the
construction of the bridge over the Rhine, the siege of
Alesia and the conquest of Britannia7, or the storming of
the city of Jerusalem and the fortress of Masada8. In the
detailed description of the feat there can be no room for
a description of the weapons and their use because these
were the subject matter of discourse among soldiers, and
not of interest within a literary circle or in a military treaty,
such as those written by Polybius, Josephus Flavius and
Publius Flavius Vegetius.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The essence of this work is in its proposal to fill this gap,
attempting to base its finds exclusively on indisputable
data and sources and avoiding personal considerations
which could easily mislead a correct evaluation.
Essentially the Pugio, as the subject of our study, will lead
us through the history and evolution of the Roman army.
It will accompany us on our way to a discovery and deeper
knowledge of many aspects - sometimes not well known
but certainly important - in order to understand better the
characteristics and the mentality of this extraordinary,
ancient army.
Vegetius, “Epitoma rei militaris”, book I
Yann Le Bohec, “L’esercito romano”, ed. Carocci
G. Köbler, “Indogermanisches Wörterbuch”, München, 1981;
Nonius Marcellus, “De compendiosa Doctrina” LLA 615, book 19, meaning “the pugio is a short gladius”;
basic foot soldier in Latin ;
in his work “Historiae”;
Julius Caesar,”De Bello Gallico”;
Josephus Flavius, “De Bello Judaico”;
Vincenzo Aiello,”Le armi nel mondo tardo antico”;
6
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
6
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER I
ORIGINS, EVOLUTION AND CLASSIFICATION
“One of the greatest problems in the academic debate is
that terminology identifies groups which do not actually
exist as such. The modern historian needs to group
together different civilisations.” 1
Classification is a fundamental concept in the chronological
research of a weapon. However, as I cannot but agree
with the above-mentioned concept, the classification
proposed here is consequently based on three main types,
all possessing real and evident characteristics. That is
to say that it only considers well-defined evolutionary
differences and is not the fruit of the almost certainly
differing styles and civilisations of the armourers who
created the weapons.
This notwithstanding, as with every classification, its
quality is in its explanation - in this case of the evolution
of the weapon over time - but it is inevitably limited by
a potentially excessive simplification and rigidity which
does not always mirror the precise historical reality of each
single object.
This chapter, furthermore, aims to follow the evolution of
the weapon over the centuries, from its first appearance
in the panoply of the Roman legion until its final
disappearance, without neglecting to investigate its
genesis.
Let us, therefore, use this as our starting point.
When there is a lack of indisputable historical sources, the
origins of an ancient weapon are very difficult to identify.
Therefore, we will reconstruct them, beginning with the
archaeological and historical evidence at hand.
There is no doubt that the origins are to be sought for
within the Hispanic culture and, more precisely, there
is no doubt that the Roman pugio derives directly from
the biglobular Celtiberian dagger2. Short edge weapons
coming from Italic and central European territories,
instead, are of no particular influence. This appears to be
quite a surprising anomaly, in fact, one might wonder why
the Romans did not emulate the use of short edge weapons
by the great peoples who lived at close quarters with
them, rather than competing with the Celtiberians3, as for
example the Samnites, the Etruscans, and the Celts of the
Italic territories, etc.
In actual fact, the explanation is quite plausible, and is to
be found not in the craftsmanship of the weapon or in the
construction techniques, but rather in the use that was it
was intended for. The fundamental difference is that in the
period of the Roman Republic the dagger was a weapon
purely used for battle purposes on the Iberian peninsula4,
whereas in the Hellenic, Italic and central European
territories it was intended rather as a symbolic object.
From a military point of view, it is connected with the
tactical method of combat.
The Romans and Iberians were very similar from this point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
of view and followed a sort of “western” tradition5, with
the use of units that did not lack a large dose of flexibility6
(the maniples, in the case of the Romans). Against this,
the Hellenic populations, and consequently the Italic
populations who were greatly influenced by the former,
used arms appropriate to a phalanx formation (including
the long spear) and hence the dagger was not present in
their panoply – being totally useless. It was, instead, often
used as a symbolic object of a votive, cultural or funerary
character7. Similarly in the Celtic civilisation the dagger
had a totally unimportant tactical value. In fact, very
occasionally the odd single-edged knife has been found
in warriors’ tombs (for example those in Casalandri and
Christian Koepfer, “Arming the warrior”, Ancient Warfare, 2009;
Fernando Quesada Sanz, “Armas del la antiqua Iberia”, ed. La Esferas de los Libros
People from celtic origin, settled since VIII century B.C. in the middle of the iberian peninsula;
Fernando Quesada Sanz, “Not so different, individual fighting techniques and battle tactics”;
Fernando Quesada Sanz, ibid.;
Giovanni Brizzi, “Il guerriero, l’oplita, il legionario”, ed. Il Mulino;
Raffaele C. De Marinis in “Genti in arme, aristocrazie guerriere della Basilicata antica”, ed. De Luca;
7
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
7
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
S. Maria di Zevio), but never daggers, whose military
function is not even certain8.
If we add to this that the Celtiberi were exceptional
soldiers, particularly ready for hand-to-hand combat and
equally as attached to their weapons as to their lives9
- those weapons serving them in a purposefully efficient
manner - we can understand why the Romans made use
those self-same weapons without hesitation. In fact, their
pragmatism from this point of view is very well known, as
they never failed readily to assimilate any enemy weapon
that was considered valid. This was their method dating
back to the most ancient times, as Polybius testifies: “The
Romans, in fact, are more able than any other peoples
to learn new customs and imitate the best of what they
see.”10
In order to have an immediate basic reference, I feel it is
useful to give a brief description of the three main areas
treated:
1) Typology of the “First (or Republican) Period”:
this goes from the first appearance of the pugiones
until the end of the I century B.C., hence coinciding
approximately with the Republican period – beginning
of the Julio-Claudian dynasty15, and including roughly
the first and part of the second century B.C.
2) Typology of the “Second (or Imperial) Period”: this
coincides more or less with the I century;
3) Typology of the “Third (or Final) Period”: this goes
from the beginning of the II century to the moment
in which the pugiones disappear from the Roman
panoply, towards the first half of the III century.
Hence, the Celtiberian weapons, once they had fallen into
a similar tactical context to that of the Romans, could
be used ‘tout court’ – as, in fact, they were. During the
II Punic War, when the contact between the two armies
was no longer sporadic, the Roman army was re-supplied
with weapons not only by the mother country, but also and
above-all by the local production centres, using specialised
local skilled-labour11.
• First Period (or Republican Period):
It is not possible to identify the precise moment when the
pugio appears among the weapons of the Roman soldier
as it is diluted over time. This could not be otherwise
considering that ancient weapons were always the fruit of
a slow evolution.
With the defeat of the Carthaginians in 206 B.C., the
slow process of conquering the Hispanic territories
began for the Romans, during which they soon realised
that the native populations were far from willing to enter
pacifically into the Roman orbit16. Fighting continued until
180 B.C. when agreements were made which brought
relative peace until 150 B.C.. The second part of the
century was, however, characterised by a fresh outbreak
of fighting, which culminated in the war instigated by the
Romans against the Celtiberians and the Lusitanians17, a
very proud and bellicose people, dedicated by tradition to
war and plundering. It was precisely the need to prevent
their raids which brought on a series of encounters which
blew up into one of the most difficult wars Rome ever had
to face18.
Within this war scenario, the most difficult moments
were caused by the so-called Numantin wars, whose
name comes from the fortified city by the same name:
Numantia19. This city became the setting for bloody battles
for many years to come, the first of which was fought from
153 to 151 B.C. by Quintus Fulvius Nobiliores and Marcus
Claudius Marcellus, whereas the second took place from
143-133 B.C. and was terminated by the efforts of Scipio
Emilianus, assisted by Gaius Marius20.
Simple deduction may lead us to believe that the first
contact between the Roman army and the Celtiberian
biglobular dagger goes back to the times of heavy fighting
with Hannibal, seeing as he used Celtiberian mercenaries,
however, more probably it goes back to the encounters
of M. Portius Cato in 195 B.C. right in Celtiberia21.
Nevertheless, this remains a hypothesis, as there are no
The Celtiberian biglobular dagger appears on the scene
already from the end of the IV century B.C. in the Meseta
area, particularly concentrated in the part inhabited by the
Celtiberians, even if the presence of some specimens has
been noted in Catalonia in the Valencia area. The Hispanic
weapon, “de frontòn type I”12, also from the V-IV century
BC, descends in turn from the above-mentioned dagger.
Its exterior appearance, in the same way as both its very
unusual construction technique and size, are all identical to
the first Roman pugiones, so much so that if they are taken
out of context it appears impossible to distinguish the one
from the other.
Classical sources which confirm its Celtiberian origins are
almost completely inexistent, however, one seems to move
in this direction. Martial13 tells us: “Pugio, quem curva
signat brevis orbita vena. Stridentem gelidis hunc Salo
tinxit acquis14” where Salo is the name of the river (Saone)
Jalòn at the time,, which flowed in Celtiberian territory.
Having completed this brief dissertation on the genesis
of the Roman pugio, let us move on to the subject which
interests us most: its evolution and classification.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Giovanni Banfi, “L’armamento dei Celti”, ed. Il Cerchio;
Tito livio “Ab Urbe condita 34,17” talk that consul Cato wondered knowing some hispanic soldiers killed themselves because had been unarmed
by Romans, because their life doesn’t worth longer without own weapons;
Historiae, book VI, 25;
Fernando Quesada Sanz, ibid.;
Eduardo K. De Prado, “ El puňal bidiscoidal peninsular: tipologia y relaciòn con el puňal militar Romano”, Galdius XXVIII 2008;
“Epigrams”, libro XIV-33
“the pugio, thinly and roundly grooved, has been squeaking tempered by the ice cold water of the Saon river”;
from Augustus (27 B.C.) to the death of Nero in the 69s, the so called “years of the four emperors”. From that time onwards flavian dynasty started
;
Javier Arce, “Hispania Romana”, ed. Electa;
Javier Arce, ibid.
Giovanni Brizzi, “Il guerriero, l’oplita, il legionario” ed. Il Mulino;
Important celtiberian town, near today’s Soria, builted in the IV cent. B.C., towards which several Roman expeditions had been stopped;
Javier Arce, “Hispania Romana”, ed. Electa;
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid.;
8
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
8
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER I - ORIGINS, EVOLUTION AND CLASSIFICATION
•
•
•
•
fig. I/1: some of the most archaic examples of pugiones retraceable
to a Roman context (drawing by the author based on graphical
information from “El punal bidiscoidal peninsular: tipologia y
relacion con el punal militar Romano, ” Galdius XXVIII 2008);
1. Fragments of grips from the Field of Renieblas (Soria, Spain)
dated between 195 and 133 B.C.
2. Blade from the field of Castillejo (Soria, Spain) dated between 152
and 133 B.C.
3. Blade from the city of La Caridad (Teruel, Spain) dated between
133 and 75 B.C.
4. Blade from the archaeological site of La Azucarera (La Rioja,
Spain) dated end II century B.C., discovered together with other
weapons whose Roman origin is quite certain.
To conclude, we can, therefore, reasonably place the
moment the pugio was adopted by the Romans as between
mid and end II century B.C., possibly more precisely in the
final decades during the conflict with the Celtiberians.
Another fact which confirms the improbability of earlier
dating is that Polybius, the well-known greek historian,
never mentions the pugio in his writing27 despite the
accuracy of his descriptions of Roman weapons. It is
also highly improbable that he intentionally omitted their
description if they were notably widely spread.
Following this, the weapon seems to remain confined to
the iberian territories for many years without interesting
other provinces, as is proven by the archaeological finds,
which are always localized to this area.
We have to wait until 52 B.C. in order to find traces outside
the territories of origin, specifically in the archaeological
context of Alesia (France)28, home to the notorious battle
promoted by Julius Caesar against the Gallic coalition led
by Vercingetorix. Excavations have brought 5 specimens to
light, one of which has an astonishing similarity with the
already-mentioned specimen from the citadel of La Caridad
(Teruel)29. It has been hypothesised that they could be of
Celtic origin, but considering that they were found together
with a large quantity of Roman material, and also considering
the lack of similar weapons in areas typical of the Celtic
civilisation, this hypothesis appears rather improbable30.
From this moment onwards we start to find accounts of
the weapon in various parts of the Roman dominion, one
of the most evocative being the gravestone of Minicius
Lorarius. Unfortunately, the epigraph on it has been badly
preserved, but one might reasonably hypothesis that the
soldier belonged to the “Legio Martia”31. This legion was
enrolled by Caesar in 49 B.C. and had a short life as it was
destroyed during the civil war between Ottavianus and
Mark Anthony in 42 B.C.32, so the dating of the finding
is quite precise. The soldier figured on it apparently also
shows a pugio from Period I among his weaponry, even if
the pommel on the handle is lost33.
Another coeval reference of great importance is the
commemoration coin of Caesar’s assassination, coined in
44 B.C.34 (fig. 1/2). On it two daggers are figured, which
evidently represent the murder weapon, the one on the
archaeological discoveries to confirm it. What could be
the most ancient finds of a pugio of Roman origin comes
from the Roman fields of Castillejo and La Atalaya de
Renieblas, both near Numantia22. An important element
of doubt nevertheless remains, considering that during
this period there is still substantial similarity between
the Roman and the Celtiberian weapon, and, therefore,
it cannot be excluded with certainty that these specimens
belong to Celtiberian defectors or that they were war
booty. In this case we are (above-all regarding the field
of La Atalaya de Renieblas) in a historical context which
goes back to the beginning of the II century B.C.23
It has been useful to study an specimen from La Azucarera
(La Rioja), dating back to the end of the II century/
beginning I century B.C.24 and of certain Roman origin
as it was found together with a ‘Montefortino’-style
helmet and a dagger which is almost certainly a “gladius
hispaniensis”25, a typical Roman weapon of the time.
If we make a summary of the most ancient specimens of
pugio that can be traced back with sufficient certainty to a
Roman context, we have26:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Handle from the field of Renieblas (Soria) dated
between 195 and 133 B.C. However, it must admitted
that the date 195 is not very certain and should most
probably be deferred to 153 B.C., during one of the
Numantine wars;
4 specimens from the field of Castilejo (Soria), dated
between 153 and 133 B.C. near Numantia;
a specimen from the Roman city of La Caridad (Teruel),
dated between 133 and 75 B.C.
a specimen from La Azucarera (La Rioja), found with
other Roman weapons, dated end II century-beginning
I century B.C.
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid.;
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid.;
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid.;
Iliarte,Gil,Filloy 1999, pag 233-250;
from Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid.;
Polibio, “Storie”, see above all book VI;
Michel Fèugere, “Weapons of the Romans”, ed. Tempus. Precisely, had been found 5 specimens, plus 38 pila, 11 swords and scabbards (among
those some are from celtic culture) and many arrow and spear points;
Eduardo K. De Prado, op. cit;
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid.;
L’iscrizione recita: (Mi)nucio T.f. Lorario c(e)ntuur(ioni) in [leg(ione)?] (M?)artia terti(a?) …..
J.R.Gonzalez, “Historia del las legiones Romanas”, Madrid 2003;
Claudio Franzoni, “Habitus atque Habitudo Militis”, ed. “L’Erma” di Bretschneider;
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid. Sear 1439, Crawfrod 508/3;
9
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
9
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Pic. I/2: coin in commemoration of the assassination of Julius Caesar,
coined in 44 B.C. The dagger on the right seems unmistakably
like a pugio from the Republican period (from “Roman Military
Equipment”, by M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston).
pic. 1/3: On the left: specimen of biglobular dagger from the necropolis
of La Osera (Spain) dating to III century B.C. On the right: pugio of I
Roman type, from Oberaden (Germany), dating between 11 and 7 B.C.
Even though separated by many centuries, the handles are decorated
with a very special pattern and are almost identical (drawing by
author from “El punal bidiscoidal peninsular: tipologia relacion con
el punal miltar Romano”, Galdius XXVIII 2008).
right indisputably like a pugio from Period I. From this
two things can be deduced: the first is that this is a weapon
that has deeply penetrated Roman tissue, and secondly,
seeing that whoever coined it intended it to represent
the instrument, almost symbolically, which permitted the
patriotic act of being freed from a tyrant35, it is unthinkable
that the icon pictured on it is less than the icon of Roman
civilisation. All this suggests that at the time there was no
weapon more typically Celtiberian but also completely
Roman. It also bears noting that the specimen on the left
instead shows a rather rare type of handle, with very few
similar extant specimens, one of which having been found
in Taranto (southern Italy) still in its sheath and whose
handle presents a cross-shaped pommel but no central
knob36.
with small percentages of tin and lead (which can at times
be completely missing), but already at the start of Tiberius’
reign the quantity of copper has diminished to 76-77% and
that of zinc increased instead to 22-23%44. Never in all the
duration of The Empire – and while orichalcum was used
– were such high quantities of copper recorded as towards
the end of the Republic/early Empire. In the case of the
tested pugio we have the following percentages: copper
93.2%, zinc 5.8% and lead 0.99%, which are compatible
with those used at the end of the Republican Period, which
confirms the above-mentioned dating.
The decorative element of this material is of particular
importance in so far that we will see it used very frequently
in the pugiones of the following period, which allows us
to consider this specimen as almost a connecting link
between the two types.
Another specimen which certainly requires mentioning
originates from the Roman site of Oberaden (Germany)
with characteristics typical of the Period I and dated with
certainty between 11 and 7 B.C.45, which possibly makes
it the latest known pugio of the Republican Period. Its
great similarity with a Celtiberian specimen from tomb
no. 1387 of the necropolis of “La Osera”46 (Avila, Spain)
from III century B.C.47 is astounding. Even though the
two weapons are separated by two hundred years the
geometrical decorations on the handles are practically
identical: an evident sign of how strongly the Roman
weapons were linked to the Celtiberian ones (fig. I/3).
In any case, these last two pugiones permit us to mark the
end of the I century B.C. as the historic moment in which
the transition of the weapons from period I to period II
occurred.
One of the last specimen from Period I which is reasonably
easy to date, but whose place of origin unfortunately
has not been possible to identify, can be placed in the
Augustan period in virtue of some decorative fragments
on the handle which, under metallographic examination37,
were found to be in Orichalcum.
This alloy38 (from the greek ορειχαλκοζ) was introduced
to Roman use at the end of the Republican Period or at the
beginning of the Augustan Period39, mainly due to a need
to mint some coins (sesterces, duponds and semi-axes)40.
The techniques the Romans used are still not accurately
known, even if some fleeting mention by Pliny41 leads us
to hypothesis that it was not obtained by directly adding
zinc to copper, but rather by cementation42. In any case,
the composition of the alloy was not a constant percentage
over time43 and this is often a valid clue for quite reliable
dating. As a general rule the quantity of copper tends to
diminish quickly in comparison with zinc. At the end of
the Republic and at the beginning of the reign of Augustus,
92-93% of copper and 5-6% of zinc are recorded, together
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid.;
M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston, ibid.
Investigation made with XRF technique (x rays fluorescens);
alloy made above all with copper, zinc and little quantity of tin and lead. In late times we see a gradual decreasing of the zinc and an a
contemporaneous increasing of the lead.
C. Giardino, “I metalli nel mondo antico”, 1998
F. Catalli., “La monetazione Romana republicana”, IPZS, 2001;
Plinio, “Historia Naturalis”, XXXIV, 4
Metallurgical process during which some ore of zinc (carbonate or oxide ), dust of copper and coal are putted inside a close melting pot.
Temperature must be over 908° but less than 1083°;
C. Giardino, ibid.;
Caley E.R., “Orichalcum ad related ancient alloys”;
Oberaden camp has been used during a short period, from 11th to 7th B.C.
F. Quesada, n. cat. 5997;
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid. dated on the basis of the spot of the grave, which is datable to the III cent. B.C.;
10
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
10
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER I - ORIGINS, EVOLUTION AND CLASSIFICATION
Pic. I/4: typical specimen of Roman pugio
from Period 1. It is worth noticing the
characteristic handle with almost circular
pommel and knob, a direct result of the
Celtiberian biglobular dagger. The midrib
of the blade and the rather long point are
also clearly visible. The similarity with
Celtiberian arms is decidedly marked, so
much so as to render them often identical.
(Photo by the author).
Pic. I/5: blade presenting a well-preserved
tang in flat form for the attachment of the
handle. The circular expansion positioned
at a third of its length is quite visible. The
civilisation of origin is not certain, but it is
more probably Celtiberian than Roman,
but this does not lessen its explanatory
worth. (photo by the author).
the superiority of Rome on the military field was based
above-all on the quality of the individual weaponry of each
soldier52.
However, before we continue our temporal investigation,
this is an appropriate moment to move a few steps back
in time and reflect on the motivation which urged the
Romans to include the pugio in their panoply. It obviously
cannot have been a random act, but was certainly dictated
by specific needs.
All this allows us to put forward the hypothesis that the
pugio was established on hispanic land as a weapon of
completion for the offensive armament of each individual
legionary as a response to the necessity to maximise
efficiency in hand-to-hand combat within the cohtal
legion. Following this, its use spread in turn to other parts
of territory controlled by the Republic.
We have just seen that the period in which the weapon
was adopted is to be placed between 130 and 100 B.C.
during the clashes with the Celtiberian population, and
we have also seen how combative and terrible the latter
were in hand-to-hand combat. Rome’s reaction was that
of originally attempting to avoid this type of combat but,
where this was not possible, to put the legionary in the best
possible conditions for survival48. The consequence was
twofold: the creation of a new formation which was more
compact than the maniples and capable of preventing the
enemy from penetrating it, but at the same time sufficiently
agile and autonomous to keep the enemy under pressure;
and the improving of individual weaponry together with
rigorous training of the legionary49.
This new type of formation (much as it may appear to
have been inspired by the ancient phalanx formation) will
be the one to be adopted successfully by every legion of
The Empire: the coht. This formation, probably initially
conceived by Scipio Africanus on Iberian land, was
already well known from the III century B.C. onwards,
but was only used sporadically until the reform by Caius
Marius at the end of the II century B.C.50; and only within
this backdrop of war without any significant spread over
the rest of the Roman territory. With the beginning of the
I century B.C. it began to be established in the rest of the
army. Marius was also one of the greatest supporters of
the necessity for rigorous training of the legionaries and,
among the various innovations, his reform foresaw the
above-quoted improving of individual weaponry in order
to increase the efficiency of the soldiers in direct combat51.
We have also seen that this important figure trained as a
soldier right on Spanish soil around 140-130 B.C. without,
however, forgetting that the importance given to individual
weaponry was certainly not confined to those times: still
in the III century A.D., Herodian of Antioch claims that
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
In this period, however, the weapon is still far from being
as widely spread as it will be in the following century.
If we analyse all the specimens together that are known
to us to this day (or at least those it has been possible to
trace – see Chapter IX) out of 217 weapons (excluding
the empty sheaths) only 24 can be traced back to Period I,
which is only 11%. This data is confirmed by the study of
the stelae (tombstones; see chapter VII of this book) from
which we can see that only 1 out of 29 reports the presence
of a pugio.
At the beginning the pugio was borrowed directly from the
Celtiberian, biglobular dagger without the Romans feeling
the need to make any relevant alterations, and so the two
weapons are often practically identical in appearance during
the Republican Period (diagram I/1, inset A1).
They are distinguishable in this particular case by the
handle, which shows a typical pommel and a knob
(diagram I/1, inset B1) both with a circular trend – from
which the name “biglobular” or rather “bidiscoidal”
derives53. The first pommel is always bigger than the
second, which is placed in the centre of the grip, and
both can include simple decorations. All direct trace has
been lost of these as no specimen has reached us with its
decorations intact, but on the grips which we have been
able to study some decorative engraved patterns have been
noticed54 - even if this is a characteristic frequently present
in weapons originating from a Celtiberian context55.
In some less frequent cases it is possible to find small,
G. Brizzi, “Il guerriero,l’oplita, il legionario”, ed. Il Mulino;
G. Brizzi, ibid.;
R. D’Amato e G. Sumner,”Arms and Armour of the Roman imperial soldier” ed. Frontline books;
G. Brizzi, ibid.;
Erodiano, “Storia dell’Impero dalla morte di Marco”, III,4,9;
“biglobular” definition is the most commonly used although “bidiscoidal”, suggested by K. De Prado, is indeed closer to the real appearance of
the object;
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, “Las dagas del ejército altoimperial en Hispania”, Gladius XXVIII, 2008;
citiamo gli esemplari dalla necropoli di Carratiermes, dal campo di Gormàz y Ciruelos, e l’impugnatura dal campo di Càceres el Viejo;
11
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
11
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
period I (or Republican)
II-I cent. B.C.
A1
• Small size
• Very simple decorations
GENERAL SHAPE AND SIZE (A)
period II (or Imperial)
end I cent. B.C.- beginning II cent. a.D.
A2
• The size in crease slowly
• Elegant weapon, often very coloured
period III (or Final)
beginning II cent. - end III cent. a.D.
A3
• Considerable size, up to 45 cm and
more
• Plain appearance, no decorations
HANDLE (B)
period I
period II
period III
B1
• Handle with pommel and knob in somewhat
circular shape
• Made with composite technique
B2
• handle with semi-circular pommel (flat upper size)
• made both with composite and framing
technique
• frequent presence of rivets on the top of the
pommel
• often prominent and rich decorations
B3
• handle with bi-lobed pommel
• small knob, often just noticeable
• made both with composite and framing
technique
12
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
12
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER I - ORIGINS, EVOLUTION AND CLASSIFICATION
period I (or Republican)
II-I cent. B.C.
C1
• Length: 17-22 cm
• width: 3-3,5 cm
• Ratio: 5.5 -7/1
• Slender general shape, almost no
waisted
• Midrib always present
• Tang always flat
BLADE (C)
period II (or Imperial)
end I cent. B.C.- beginning II cent. a.D.
C2
• Lenght:18-25 cm
• width: 3,0-4,0 cm
• Ratio: 6,0 -6,3
• Midrib occasionally not present
• Often waisted
• Tang both flat and with rod shape
period III (or Final)
beginning II cent. - end III cent. a.D.
C3
• Length of the blade: 30-35 cm
• Very wide blade, up to 7 cm
• Ratio: 3,7-5,0
• Squat and very waisted
• Midrib, if present, often with side
channels
• Tang both flat and with rod shape”
Diagram I/1 : summary of the most important features of the pugiones during the three different periods. (drawing by the author)
13
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
13
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
14
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
14
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER I - ORIGINS, EVOLUTION AND CLASSIFICATION
Diagram I/2: temporal placement of the most significant
characteristics of the pugiones in the three periods (the
drawings are in different scales)
1) handle very similar to that of the Celtiberian
biglobular dagger, with pommel and knob in
circular form. Decorations often absent or very
scarce;
2) Blade not very big, about 17-22cm in size, with
midrib. Ratio length/width between 5.5 and 7.0.
Waisted shape almost totally absent;
3) ‘Flat’ shaped tang. The dotted part of the line
which indicates its distribution (corresponding
to approximately the second half of the I century)
shows the moment in which this characteristic is
not very widespread, after which it reappears quite
regularly. This characteristic may be considered
to coincide with “composite” construction
techniques;
4) Superior pommel in the shape an inverted “D”, of
simple appearance, without decorations and rivets
in the superior part;
5) blade (in the diagram seen in cross-section) with
strong midrib deriving from a soldering of the
blades on a suitable central rib;
6) Blade between 20 and 25cm long, possibly waisted,
at times even noticeably so. Ratio between length/
width between 5.5 and 7.0;
7) hand guard type “B”;
8) Decorated rivets placed at the top of the pommel,
still in the shape of an inverted “D”;
9) Rich decorations, damascened and in enamel on
the handle and on the sheaths;
10) Grip with central knob, more or less circular and
superior pommel in the shape of an inverted “D”;
11) hand guard type “C”;
12) Pommel in bilobal shape, still without decorated
rivets such as in point 8);
13) Knob of very small size, without the characteristic
circular shape of previous periods, but rather
more similar to two small bulges;
14) Handle without any type of decoration, larger
than those of previous periods;
15) Blade of large size and often very waisted, with
length/width ratio values up to 3.7;
16) Blade with midrib often defined by lateral
grooves;
(drawings by the author)
15
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
15
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
the periods thereafter. This is due to the fact that it is also
present – even if not always – in the later periods.
It may possibly be more useful to consider, vice-versa,
that the absence of the midrib is quite a certain indication
that the weapon is not from Period I. Grooves on the sides
of the midrib are as yet never noted: we will have to wait
approximately another century for their appearance.
Another fact that deserves attention is that the characteristic
‘waisted form’ of the blade, which is very accentuated in
future years, is hardly ever very observed yet (diagram I/1,
inset C1) and, indeed, there are many specimens in which
it is only barely noticeable and where the sides of the blade
are almost parallel. In this case the Celtiberian tradition
does not appear to have been followed meticulously
seeing as we can find various Celtiberian specimens with
waisted blades already dating from III century B.C.59, as
for example the specimens from Osma (III century B.C.),
Ucero (previous to the II century B.C.) and Quintanas de
Gormaz. (111 century B.C.), even if we can obviously find
just as many, and possibly even more, with the blade shape
not presenting this characteristic. Finally, the point of the
blade is normally quite long and slim60.
Pic. I/6; on the left: pugio handle from Period II which shows the
classic “D” shape of the pommel, with three rivets on the top. On the
right: handle with pommel always in a “D” shape, but without the
rivets. This one, originating from an imprecise locality in Germany, is
very similar to the one from camp no. I in Hedemünden (Germany),
dated in the last decade of I century B.C. (photo by the author).
The assembly technique used to attach the handle onto the
blade was invariably the “composite technique”, which I
will not describe in detail now as it is dealt with in-depth
in the appropriate chapter on construction techniques at a
later point in this book. For the moment one should only
bear in mind the fact that there is nothing which points to
the use of other techniques.
embedded gem stones or enamels. We are, however,
a far cry from the quantity of decorations which will
characterise the pugiones of the following period, yet to be
studied in this work.
The blades are never exceptionally large, generally being
rather limited in size, (diagram I/1, inset C1), on average
between 17 and 22 cm long and 3-4 cm wide. If we
consider the ratio between these two sizes (the width being
measured at the utmost point excluding where the handle
is attached, which is usually hardly significant), we are left
with figures between approximately 5.5 and 7.0: that is to
say substantially narrow blades56 if compared to those that
appear later on.
They are unfailingly endowed with a midrib (diagram I/1,
inset C1), another characteristic directly derived from the
Celtiberian daggers57, which are provided with this element
in practically every case58. However characteristic it may
be, this element alone is not very useful to distinguish
the specimens from Period 1 from those pertaining to
• Second Period (Or Imperial Period)
Now let us return to the end of the I century B.C., a
moment of transition from the first type of arms to the
second, in order to continue our evolutionary study. We
come to what was certainly the golden age, in which the
pugiones, having lost any characteristics in common with
the Celtiberian culture, have become typically Roman.
They reach the point of becoming such unusual weapons
that they have no equals either in previous times or in
those to come61. This change is accompanied by a decisive
increase in their distribution among soldiers (despite the
geographical and grouping limitations which we will see
later), as is confirmed by the statistics of archaeological
pic. I/7: two main types of hand guards: type “B” with sloping upper edge, and type “C” with both edges horizontal and parallel. (Drawings by the author).
56
57
58
59
60
61
as much the value of the ratio is high as the blade looks slender;
truly such feature is also present in some bronze swords from X cent., although among those is not common but rather discontinuous;
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid. Precisely, 94% of the biglobular daggers examined by the author show a midrib;
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid.
M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston, ibid.
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, ibid.;
16
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
16
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER I - ORIGINS, EVOLUTION AND CLASSIFICATION
fig. I/8: on the top, pugio
with “rod” type tang.
On the bottom, pugio
with “flat” type tang.
(Drawings by the author).
finds which show a greater concentration precisely in type
II specimens.
The Imperial Period coincides roughly with the I century
A.D., and goes more precisely from the last decade of
the I century B.C. to the last decade of the I century A.D.
(drawing I/2)
One of the first known specimen comes from Titelberg62
(Luxemburg), dated between 30 and 12 B.C.63, and,
therefore, contemporary with the last Republican
specimens mentioned above, which is proof that at this
moment of transition both typologies co-existed64. The
specimen is not exceptionally long65 and introduces us to
the characteristics of Period II, which we will immediately
examine.
Certainly the most characteristic element is the handle,
which distinguishes it both from the previous specimens
and from those which follow as it presents some very
peculiar details (diagram I/1, inset B2). One of the most
noticeable is the shape of the superior pommel which,
having abandoned the traditional circular shape, is now
presented is an unfailingly semi-circular or “inverted
D” shape66. This is undeniably a peculiar characteristic
belonging only to weapons of this period, but it is
nevertheless necessary to point out that some other rare
examples have been noted previously. I am referring to
the handles, often fragmented, that have been discovered
at the excavations in Numancia (Spain), particularly those
carried out by J.R. Mèlida and by A. Schulten67, which, as
we have seen, could be dated between 153 and 133 B.C.
Nothing, however, in comparison with what occurred
during the Imperial Period, when practically no pugio
existed without such a pommel.
At times the rivet heads were countersunk in order to make
room for the enamel, which, as we will see, was often of
a red colour.
There was a variable number of rivets from zero to three,
even if most had three; and this is the element to keep in
mind as it provides us with indications for the dating of
the weapon.
A lack of rivets was quite rare and seems to be limited to
the first part of the period, roughly within the first decade
of the I century (diagram I/2, detail 4). We note their
presence, for example, in the pugio found in camp no. 1
in Hedemünden (Germany), which was used for a brief
period (11-7 B.C. approx.) by Drusus for his campaigns
in Germania against the Chatti and the Cherusici71. In this
context numerous other finds have been discovered – coins
among others - which allow us to have reliable dating.
Also in the museum of Zagreb (Croatia), where various
pugiones are preserved, it is possible to find one without
rivets in splendid condition, datable between I century
B.C. and I A.D72.
Another specimen from the same collection, very similar
to the previous one and with the same dating, presents
instead only one rivet. Further confirmation is found
in an specimen preserved in the LWL Romermuseum
(Haltern, Germany), which not only has no rivets but also
presents various analogies with specimens from Period I,
confirming its early dating. It originates from the camp of
Oberaden (Germania) and, therefore, can be placed in the
final decade of the I century. as this camp was used roughly
from 11 to 7 B.C., when it was abandoned in favour of
Haltern73. In any case, there are plenty of exceptions and,
in fact, the above-mentioned specimen from Titelberg,
even though it is the most ancient, shows all three rivets
on its pommel.
We can, therefore, say that the absence of rivets is a
probable indication for early dating, between the end of
the I century B.C. and the beginning of the I A.D., but the
opposite, that is to say their presence, does not necessarily
mean that the specimen is from a later period.
They also presented another important typical
characteristic: the presence of some rivets on the upper
edge (diagram I/1, inset C1). Their function is often only
decorative68, not contributing in any manner to the strength
of the handle and even weakening it in some ways69. Only
in some rare specimens do they seem to have the function
of fixing the upper part70.
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, ibid.;
L. Venden Berghe & M. Simkins, “ construction and recostruction of the Titelberg dagger”, JRMES 12/13, 2001;
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, ibid.;
65
tot. length = 314 mm, length of the handle = 108 mm., width of the blade near the guard= 61,7 mm.;
66
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, ibid.;
67
Luik 2002, Abb. 53,4;
68
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, ibid.;
69
Herbert Westphal, “Ein römischer Prunkdolch aus Haltern”;
70
See cap. V- building techniques -. An example of such purpose is a specimen in the Haltern Museum (Ge);
71
Klaus Grote, “Römerlager Hedemünden”, Hann-Münden 2005;
72
R. D’Amato e G. Sumner,” ibid.;
73
Cassio Dione Cocceiano, “Storia Romana”, LIV, 33;
62
63
64
17
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
17
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
fig. I/10; comparison between two pugio blades (first two from the
left) and three gladi, all dated between the last part of the I century
B.C. and the first half of the I century. The pugio blades seem like
reproductions on a smaller scale of those of the gladi, especially the
two specimens whose cross-section is practically identical. (Drawings
by author).
pic. I/9: Blade with cutting edges soldered by “boiling” to the central
rib. Notice the generous size of the latter. (Photo by author).
same evolution. A wide, flat tang, with a larger central
part corresponding with the pommel, accompanies the
“composite” technique, whereas the “framing” technique
is accompanied by a tang in the shape of a simple rivet.
The former we will call the “flat” type, and the latter
the “rod” type, (fig. I/8). It is certain that the pugiones
were first made using the “flat” type of tang, once again
derived from Celtiberian biglobular daggers, which were
unfailingly made in this manner77.
This type was constantly used by the Romans for a long
period of time until the appearance of the “rod” type
around mid I century A.D., that is to say approximately
between the end of the reign of Claudius and the beginning
of Nero’s78 (diagram I/2, detail 17). The first datable
specimen which shows this characteristic originated
in the excavations of Usk, Great Britain (see fig. 196
appendix 2), found in the context of The Neronian
Age79. There are two other specimens which could,
nevertheless, be considerably antecedent to this one, but
which, unfortunately, cannot be dated with any certainty,
originating from Kingsholm (Great Britain)80 and from
Augsburg-Oberhausen (Germany)81.
The appearance of the second type of tang virtually caused
the withdrawal of the first – or rather, the suspension of its
use, as we will see later on. The “rod” tang is decisively
predominant in the second half of the I century, enough
so to consider it a specific characteristic and a valid aid
for placing the daggers in a temporal context. In any case,
some rare weapons leave room to believe that the “flat”
type was never completely abandoned. One of these is
preserved in the museum of Wales, originating from the
legionary camp of Isca (Caerleon, Great Britain) which
As far as the central pommel is concerned, we find its
initially circular, classic shape substantially unaltered
(diagram I/1, inset B2), so this is not of great use for
dating purposes.
The same can be said for the hand guard, which does not
move far from the shape it had in the previous century,
being in almost every case a trapezoid shape, that is to
say with the lower side (towards the blade) horizontal,
and the upper side (towards the grip) slightly inclined.
Only towards the end of the Period, or the last quarter of
the I century (diagram I/2, detail 11) do some specimens
begin to appear in the shape which will become common
in Period III, tending towards a parallelepiped, with
parallel upper and lower sides. Edoardo Kavanagh De
Prado74 gives us a simple definition, well worth repeating,
defining type “B” as the first type, and type “C” as the
second (fig. I/7), reserving type “A” as most probably the
Celtiberian handle, which lies outside our present scope. In
the collection in the museum of Vindonissa (Switzerland)
numerous handles of the “C” type75 are preserved dating
back to the Flavian Period76, which confirms the fact that
this detail in an specimen from Period II could place it
towards the end of the I century.
Both handles were fixed onto the tang of the blade by
both “composite” techniques and “framing” techniques
(described in detail from a technical point of view in
the later chapter “5-construction techniques”), but now
we will concentrate on their chronological evolution
temporarily leaving the construction for later. It is useful
to point out that each handle is strictly associated with
a precise type of tang, which obviously followed the
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid.;
C. und. E. Deschler-Erb,” Katalog der militaria aus Vindonissa”. Precisely, in the museum’s collection there are 15 handles (some fragmented ), of
which 7 having a type “C” guard, 3 having a type “B”, and 5 remaining not having at all, because very damaged;
Ulbert, 1962, n. 6. Ian R. Scott, “First Century military dagger and the manufacture and supply of the weapons for the Roman army”, B.A.R. n.
275, 1985;
Eduardo K. De Prado, ibid.;
Ian R. Scott, ibid.;
Evan M. Chapman, “A catalogue of Roman military equipment in the national museum of Wales” BAR, 2005;
Ian R. Scott, ibid.;
Wells, 1970;
18
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
18
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER I - ORIGINS, EVOLUTION AND CLASSIFICATION
particular connections between the blade size and dating.
However, it is worth noting that all the specimens from
Vindonissa, dating to the Flavian Period, as we have
already seen, have rather slim blades and are limited in
size on the whole83.
One aspect that must be kept in mind during the evolution
of the blade, is the presence or lack of holes for fixing
the handle, which are always placed in the upper part
(diagram I/1, inset C2). Their presence is connected to
the requirements of “composite” construction techniques,
which necessitate a blade with holes for the rivets to
pass through. Most often there are only two holes, but
sometimes there are four (specimen from Dangstetten
(Germany), dating between 15 and 10 B.C.84 On the other
hand, in the case of handles made by “framing” technique,
this is no longer necessary and, therefore, the blades have
practically no holes. Consequently the chronological
reference is the same: blades with holes near the upper part
may belong to the first part of the period, until the end of
the reign of Claudius, whereas those which have no holes
belong to the second part of the I century. Obviously, there
are exceptions to this rule, among which is an specimen
from Rißtissen85, dating back to not before the end of
the reign of Claudius, and possibly later (55-60 A.D.),
which, despite its rod tang, has two holes at the top of the
blade, confirming the fact that certain rules can always be
broken.
Also the mid-rib can give us useful indications – all
being not decisive - for the dating of a blade. In some
from Haltern86, from the Augustan Period, one notices
a characteristic which, above-all in the first part of this
period, (diagram I/2, detail 5) seems to be just as present
in the gladius as in some pugiones; this characteristic is
the presence of a strong central rib, onto which the cutting
edges were applied by means of a soldering technique
called “boiling”87. This technique involved a sufficiently
wide and strong central rib, which gave it its very unusual
appearance (fig. I/9) - quite different from those normally
found in specimens not made using this technique - and
also a greater weight. To this regard, we must consider
that blades of this type can weigh up to and around 100
g, whereas those of a similar size from the Flavian Period
(with grooves) weighed about 60-80 g.
Whether the midrib is soldered by “boiling” or by
normal forging techniques, its presence, especially if very
noticeable, indicates quite an early dating, up until the end
of Tiberius’ reign88 (therefore until the third/fourth decade
of the I century) and it is never accompanied by parallel
grooves on both sides, which are, instead, not at all rare in
the second part of that period. The grooves appear for the
first time on the pugio from Auerberg, which also presents
a flat tang and could be dated between the end of Tiberius’
reign and the beginning of Claudius’ (35-45 A.D.)89. It is
interesting to note that in the collection of the museum of
Vindonissa practically all the specimens are equipped with
this peculiarity, which can once and for all be considered a
characteristic of the second part of the Imperial Period, often
together with a barely-noticeable midrib. To conclude, there
is a net difference between the size of the solid central rib
of the specimens from the Augustan Period, with soldered
cutting edges, and the almost inexistent rib of the pugiones
of the Flavian Period.
We cannot help but recall that never more than in this
pic. I/11: Fragment of sheath with coloured background in black
and decorations in red enamel (museum of Vindonissa, Switzerland).
(Photo by author).
was founded in 74-75 A.D. and allocated to the II Augusta
Legion. There is, furthermore, a fragment of a tang, still of
the flat type, originating from Camp Leucarum (Loughor,
Great Britain), which was in use from 73/80 to 115/120.
It is obviously possible that these specimens had been
constructed in previous decades and were still in use, but
it is, nevertheless, true that the “flat” tang was drastically
reduced in quantity in the II half of the I century without,
however, ever being completely abandoned.
On the other hand, it is also true that the Romans already
knew this type of technique since the late Republic, having
come across it in some – rare – Iberian specimens82, such
as those preserved in the museum of Burgos (Spain).
Despite the ever-present exceptions, we can still conclude
that the presence of a “rod” tang indicates a dating to the
second half of the I century, whereas the presence of the
“flat” type probably dates to the first half - even if the
second half cannot be excluded a priori (diagram I/2,
detail 3-17).
In the II Period the size of weapons begins to increase on
average in comparison with the previous period (diagram
I/1, inset A2). In graph 1 the blade lengths of 94 weapons
are noted -wherever it was possible to obtain reliable data
– belonging to all three periods, from which we can deduce
the following average lengths:
Average total
length
period I
period II
period III
19, 4 cm
22, 0 cm.
31, 1 cm.
The width develops in a substantially proportional manner
and, therefore, also undergoes an average increase. It is
clear that it is always possible to find specimens which
move away, even significantly, from the average data, but
this does not diminish the fact that a certain increase in the
geometrical size of the pugiones is recorded, even if it is
not very noticeable.
During the Period in question there do not seem to be
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Ludwig V. Berghe, “ some Roman military equipment of the first three centuries AD in Belgian museums”, J.R.M.E.S. 7,1996;
C. und. E. Deschler-Erb, op. cit;
Ian R. Scott, op. cit;
Ulbert, 1970, n. 259
(WmfA Münster, inv. N. 56,67,68,85,267);
for the description of this technique, see chapter V “building techniques”;
Ivan Radman-Livaja, “Militaria Siscensia”, Musei archeologici Zagrabiensis Catalogi et monographiae;
Ian R. Scott, op. cit;
19
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
19
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
area are exceptions
possible, hence we
find an specimen
from
Nijmegen,
found together with
earthenware from the
Flavian Period (69-96
A.D.), which presents
both a flat tang and
a
midrib
without
lateral grooves90. It is
possible, however that
it had been produced in
previous decades and,
in fact, also the author
of the publication on
this weapon manifests
a doubt that it could be
previously dated to the
Claudian or Neronian
Period (45-65 A.D.
approx.)91.
We said that the blade
moderately increases
in size in comparison
with the Republican
Period, and at first it
sometimes
assumes
the marked waisted
outline indicatively in
the Augustan Period. It
is to be noted that this
characteristic is peculiar
to the pugiones in all
ages, but now it appears
exemplars from period I
particularly prominent.
exemplars from period II
This outline is not very
exemplars from period III
surprising considering
Graph.1: (scale in centimetres) that in that period it
was very common
shows the lengths of blades
even in gladi (sowith sufficiently reliable data called “hispaniensis”),
regarding sizes. When in presence and very rooted in
of incomplete blades, the supposed Roman usage. It will
original length is shown where be
abandoned for
hypothesis is sufficiently reliable. good only towards
(Drawing by author).
mid I century with the
arrival of the so-called
“pompei” gladius.
At this point a slight digression is called for in order
to consider on a peculiarity which emerges from the
comparison between the pugiones and the gladi, which
generically lasts for all the period, but in particular for
the first half of the I century. The morphology of the
blades is often very similar, so much so that the former
blades seem like a reproduction on a smaller scale of the
latter. Fig. I/10 shows five blades, the first two from the
left are from pugiones, and the rest are gladi. They are
all from the above-mentioned period, and a comparison
between them shows this concept clearly. The crosssection of two specimens is also highlighted, as not only
are both morphologically very similar, but they are almost
identical, having been both created using the “boiling”
soldering technique. No example shows better how one is
a smaller copy of the other.
90
91
92
93
94
pic. I/12: this drawing shows us at a glance the size of third-type
pugiones. From the left:
- pugio from Period II (Vindonissa, Flavian Age, length 276mm,
average width 25mm) blade size ratio=7.8/1
- gladius from Newstead, mid I century A.D., (length 663mm., max
width 49mm), blade size ratio=9.7/1;
- pugio from Period III (private collection, length 640mm., width
60mm) blade size ratio=8.3/1; this weapon has a distinctly
anomalous width.
It is worth noticing how the two weapons from the I century (on the
left) are distinctly narrower than those of the II century (on the right)
(drawings by the author).
Returning to the waisted “willow leaf” profile from
the Augustan Period, it is undeniable that it can cause
some confusion seeing that this characteristic decisively
reappears – as we will see – in the following Period III, but
with the ratio blade length/width very different.
In late Republican blades, this ratio is around 6/1, whereas
in Period III it is approximately 3.5-3.7/1, that is to say that
the latter, even though they have the same very sinusoidal
line, they are definitely stubbier, the width visibly
predominates the length.
Some examples of such weapons are the already-cited
specimens from Hedemunden and Haltern, but obviously
in the same period specimens existed with blades without
this characteristic being so marked. The Flavian Period
seems, instead, to be the exact opposite with an almost
total absence of “willow leaf” edges and rather narrow
blades, which we could consider a typical element of the
Period92.
Also the shoulders of the blades93 had a quite defined
evolution. During the first part of the Imperial Period
they are almost always oblique, as they were during the
Republican Period, but as decades passed, ostensibly in
conjunction with the arrival of the “rod” tang, towards mid
I century, the use of straight backs begins to be established,
which remains unchanged also in the following and final
Period III94. (diagram I/2, detail 17).
Ian R. Scott, op. cit
Brailsford, 1962;
Ian R. Scott, op. cit
Upper portion of the blade, near the tang;
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, ibid.;
20
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
20
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER I - ORIGINS, EVOLUTION AND CLASSIFICATION
sheaths, very often only one of the two faces of the handle
was decorated, whereas the other was not at all or much
less so, obviously for economic reasons. This determines
the presence of a main face, visibly exposed, and a second
one, which was turned towards the body of the wearer and,
therefore, not visible.
The fact that damascening was often in silver on a base
material such as iron leads us to deduce that it is quite
improbable that the iron was left in its natural colour.
The two materials have such a similar chromatism that
the expensive decorations in silver are almost invisible
and useless, and hence it is reasonable to suppose that the
iron on the base was coloured either black or blue99. This
is not surprising as the coating of metallic surfaces was
well known since very ancient times, and it was frequently
used also by the Romans100. In this context the hypothesis
holds – and is even re-enforced - that also the material
inside the grip in bone or horn, and quite visible on the
sides, was coloured green by using copper oxide101. We
can imagine that these weapons were rich in colour – the
red of the rivet heads, the brilliant ageminature on a black
or blue background, the sides green – of a very bright
appearance, far from what our imagination might conjure
up and also far from the more sober specimens from the
previous period. Archaeological evidence confirming this
bold colouring is rather rare. Unfortunately, no handle
has reached us today with all its colourings still visible.
Only the rivets sometimes show some evident traces. In
any case, numerous sheaths still preserve some of their
coloured parts, and these help us to imagine what the
original appearance must have been like (fig. I/11).
The decorations on the handle can be useful for dating the
weapon even if they do not guarantee absolute certainty. It
is certain that the polychrome handles in damascening and
enamel can be dated up to the Neronian Period, after which
monochrome handles in damascening enter in use, such as
those visible in the museum of Vindonissa102. An specimen
found in 1967 during a drainage operation of the Danube
dates back to the Tiberius/Claudius Period and is perhaps
the most representative of the passage from polychrome to
monochrome103.
A total lack of decoration, instead, leads one to think of
the first part of the Period, from the end of the Republic
to the beginning of Tiberius’ reign. This is inferable
only statistically by analysing the datable specimens
where we, in fact, notice that almost all the handles of
sober appearance can be placed in this lapse of time.
Among the various ones found we mention the specimens
from Titelberg (30-12 B.C, already mentioned), from
Lorenzenberg (10 B.C. – 30 A.D.)104, from Sisak (20 B.C.20 A.D.)105, from Limburg106 (beg. I century), from the
camp of Hedemunden (11-7 B.C.)107, from Haltern (11-7
B.C.) and others. Nevertheless, next to them we find some
rich in decoration, among which some stand out, such as
those made by damascening in fine silver strips, with both
linear and entwined patterns which from a kind of simple
braid (see figure VI/13 Chapter “Sheaths”).
fig. I/13: pugio of type III. The generous size of the weapon is evident,
decidedly closer to a short gladius than to a pugio from Period I,
despite the blade being noticeably waisted. (photo by the author).
One final important aspect to be taken into consideration
is the decorations (diagram I/1, inset B2). Almost entirely
absent in the Republican Period, they become very rich
and elegant (diagram I/2, detail 9), often of an excellent
artistic level, to the extent that they form a fundamental
characteristic of this century. They are given much more
importance on the sheaths than on the handles95, and for
the moment we will concentrate only on the latter, leaving
a deeper study of the sheaths to the appropriate chapter.
In the Period II we can find simple handles without
any decoration at all in proximity to handles which are
very rich in decoration. Both the surface of the handle
and the heads of the various rivets could be found
decorated. Normally the former was decorated using
the ‘damascening’ technique, whereas the latter were
coloured with enamel96, frequently of a red colour. In some
specimens this seems to be substituted by pietre dure, in
particular the use of amber97. Damascening, instead, was
very often in silver, but the presence of orichalcum is
also possible98. It is interesting to notice that, as with the
see chapter VI “sheaths”;
On regards techniques to make decorations, see chapter VI “sheaths;
We thank dr. Tanzilli for all the informations about a pugio having decorations made from that material;
98
Herbert Westphal, op. cit
99
Herbert Westphal, ibid.;
100
C. Giardino, ibid.;
101
Herbert Westphal, ibid.;
102
Edit B. Thomas, “Helme, schiude, dolche”, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest;
103
Edit B. Thomas, ibid.;
104
Ian R. Scott, ibid.;
105
Ivan Radman-Livaja, ibid.;
106
Ludwig V. Berghe, ibid.;
107
Klaus Grote, ibid.;
95
96
97
21
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
21
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
This suggests that, even if it is true that a handle completely
void of decoration makes us think of the Augustan/Tiberian
Period, it is not to be taken for granted that a decorated
handle belongs to the period following it.
• Third Period (or Final Period)
The transition to the final period occurs quite suddenly at
the beginning of the II century; our knowledge at present
does not allow us to be more precise. One of the first
pieces of evidence for this change comes in the form of an
specimen found in the auxiliary camp of the I Coh Augusta
luterearorum (Buciumi, Romania) dating to 106-115 A.D.108,
which already presents characteristics typical of this period.
A slightly later specimen is also quite interesting, not so
much for its features - as there is very little of the handle
- but more due to the fact that its dating is quite certain as it
was found together with some Antoninus Pius coins dating
to 140-144109.
Now let us see how the weapon immediately changed and
which characteristics marked this period.
That which hits the eye at first glance is the general size of
the weapon (diagram I/1, inset C3). If a certain increase is
noted between Periods I and II, now, instead, things change
noticeably. The pugiones become decidedly longer than in
the past, with specimens reaching 45cm and more.
The width increases similarly, arriving up to 8cm, which is
wider than the gladi. A gladius of the “pompei”110 type was
around 3.5-4.5 cm wide, whereas later, wider specimens
reach a maximum width of 5.5-6cm. In the pugiones the
length/width ratio can be up to 3.7/1. Ultimately blades
took on a decisively bulky look with their width visibly
overriding length.
We are now far from the short specimens seen in the
Republican Period, to the extent as to render the definition
of dagger inappropriate. There is the possibility that the
Latin term “semispatha”, in use from the II century onwards,
could be referring exactly to these longer versions.
The increase in size and particularly in width is not
surprising as we know that the gladi become wider111 under
Antoninus Pius, and the pugiones, being closely connected
to these, cannot but follow their evolution.
pic. I/14: blades coming from the finds at Kunzing (Germany), which could
be those which Vegezio is referring to with the term “semispathae”. This
type of weapon could have replaced the pugiones towards the end of the III
century. (Drawings by the author).
the Republican Period, and now distinctly and unfailingly
to a greater degree. It is very rare to find side arms of this
sort: which leads us to consider this detail wholly Roman.
Strangely enough there do not seem to be any predecessors
to this type nor do there appear to be any like them made
by other future civilisations. The only exception that is
worth mentioning is a marble relief preserved in the museo
Nacional de Arte Romano (Mérida, Spain), depicting a
victorious horseman over a barbarian who has fallen to the
ground, grasping a blade whose size and proportions are
very close to those of the pugio from Period III.
The horseman is probably Constantine II113 (reign from
337 to 340), and the work of art could commemorate his
victory over the Germanians or over the Sarmatians, even
if in all truth other sources believe that Maximianus114
(reign from 286 to 305) is depicted. Whoever it is, the
period is, however, very late, so we are certainly not
looking at a weapon the Romans aspired towards, but on
the contrary, it is a weapon which traces the very particular
geometry of a type III pugio.
Similar to the previous specimens, the blade may or may
not have a midrib, but in addition we might find two
grooves on each side115 (diagram I/2, detail 16), which
were rarer previously and should not be confused with the
simple lines present in some blades from the end of the I
century116.
The final characteristic of the blade that is worth
considering is with regards to the shoulders, which are
now unfailingly flat (diagram I/1, inset C3), the oblique
types having gone from the scene117. We have seen these
already present in the final part of Period II, so they are not
an absolute novelty, but the essential fact is that they now
become a constant.
Fig. I/12 gives us an immediate idea of the proportions that
the type III pugiones can assume in comparison with other
Roman weapons. It is interesting to think that the gladius
on the left (from Newstead) is of average size, whereas
the one on the right (private collection) is distinctly over
average regarding weight and width. It is also interesting
to compare the pugio from Period II (first on the left, from
Vindonissa) to the that of Period III (third from the left,
private collection) Even if they are potentially separated
by few decades112, the difference in size is impressive.
This characteristic is carried on to another one which is
just as typical, that is to say the increasing waisted profile
of the blade (diagram I/1, inset C3). We have seen that
blades were waisted to a certain degree – if not always
– even in the specimens from the previous period, less in
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, ibid.;
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, ibid.;
galdius type risen on the half of the I cent. A.C., with parallel edges of the blade;
111
Arriano,”ars Tactica”, IV; Yan Le Boehc, “L’esercito Romano”, ed. Carocci;
112
specimen of III type is de-contextualized, thus is not possible to date it surely, although is almost sure it is from the middle and the end of the II
century;
113
Javier Arce, ibid.
114
Arce Martínez, “un relieve triunfal de Maximiano Hercúleo en augusta emerita y el pistras”;
115
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, ibid.;
116
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, ibid. See also specimens in the Vindonissa museum;
117
R. D’Amato e G. Sumner,”Arms and Armour of the Roman imperial soldier” ed. Frontline books;
108
109
110
22
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
22
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER I - ORIGINS, EVOLUTION AND CLASSIFICATION
Pic. I/15: marble relief preserved in the Museo National de Arte Romano (Merida, Spain) showing Constantine II victorious on top of a
barbarian. Notice that the weapon in the grip of the latter is very similar to a pugio from Period III.
In this period the flat type of tang comes back in use118
– which we saw falling into disuse in the second half of
the previous period – often together with the ‘rod’ type
(diagram I/2, detail 3-17). Whereas until mid I century
the flat type was dominant, with a virtual absence of the
‘rod’ one, and then during the second half of the century
the situation was the contrary; now, instead, both types are
equally in use.
There are significant innovations even in the handle.
The guard is no longer of the “B” type, oblique, but
rather always of the “C” type. Furthermore, in order to
accommodate the width of the blade, it is also significantly
larger, possibly up to 10cm against an average of 5 in
previous periods.
Also the pommel on the handle is worthy of attention,
which, having abandoned the afore-seen “inverted D”
shape, is now typically bilobed (diagram I/1, inset B3),
that is to say with the upper part convex. The enamelled
rivets which were so frequently present in the past are also
no longer to be found (diagram I/2, detail 12). There is no
mention of other weapons the Romans could have been
inspired by in order to create such an unusual shape apart
from a vague similarity with the Iberian so-called “deantenas” weapons119 (with the pommel of the handle in the
shape of antennas), whose pommel on the handle had two
bulges which made it take on a vaguely similar shape. In
any case, it is to be considered a definite characteristic of
the pugiones of Period III.
Also the knob noticeably undergoes a distinct evolution,
leaving behind its circular shape which characterised it
for centuries, becoming significantly smaller and taking
on the shape of two small rivets on the sides (diagram I/1,
inset B3).
We may conclude our description of the changes incurred
during this final Period by examining the decoration.
Having been very flashy up until recently, we might expect
to find it still present. Instead, it is noticeably absent. It
disappears almost unexpectedly, leaving the weapon and
its sheath with a simple, sober appearance, in some ways
just as austere as those during the Republican Period.
There is no archaeological evidence that the decorations
were more than very elementary, whether they were a
simple incision or decorative rivets. In the same way, no
space was given for the colour play of Period II. We can
find some exceptions in some sheaths which have simple
linear punching120. This is not without a precise reason,
which we will explain in detail in the chapter on sheaths,
considering that decoration was far more important on the
sheaths than the weapons themselves.
It is necessary at this point to quote an extract from the
classics which seems to present us with an exception.
Herodian in “History of the Empire after Marcus
Aurelius” (II, 12, 10), which is about the history of Rome
from 180 to 238, describes a scene in which the Pretorians
are deprived by other soldiers of what are described as
“ceremonial daggers”121. Modern literature often tends
to identify these weapons as the pugio. However, in my
opinion, this is not at all certain considering that in Greek
there was no specific term for the pugio. I believe it is
possible that these are another type of dagger with very
little in common with the pugio, which would explain the
anomalous abundance of decoration.
All the above-mentioned characteristics do not vary
significantly for the whole of Period III, during which the
weapon tends to remain substantially unchanged until it
leaves the Roman panoply.
Unfortunately, there are not many specimens that have
survived from this period, and a good part of those
which have appear to be out of context and, therefore,
difficult to date. Nevertheless, we can follow the traces
of the pugio without any hitches during the second
century. One specimen, which is particularly well known
(no. 209 appendix 2), comes from Tuchyna (Slovakia,
Northern part of the Danube), which probably derives
from the Marcomannic Wars122 and is, therefore, dated
approximately between 168 and 188. We also have access
to interesting information from an specimen (no. 40
appendix 2) found together with a ‘spatha’ of the so-called
M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston, ibid.;
F. Quesada Sanz, “El armamento ibérico. Estudio tipológico, geográfico, funcional, social y simbólico de las armas en la Cultura Ibérica (siglos VII A.C.)”
120
I.P. Sthepenshon, “Roman Infantry Equipment, The later Empire”, ed. Tempus;
121
“ as soon as such orders had been given, soldiers from Illyricum jumped forwards and tore away from Pretorians their short ceremonial daggers,
inlaid with gold and silver. Then deprived them of their belts , of the uniforms and of the standards and threw them naked”;
122
M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston, ibid.;
118
119
23
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
23
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
to 235) among which a return to the phalanx grouping,
in which an important number of legions fought in close
order126; and an important use of armoured auxiliary
cavalry (clibanarii)127. It is evident that in formations
of this type the short weapon was of little use, as a
complimentary weapon to the gladius, and this most likely
caused its gradual abandonment.
However, the finds at Kunzing on the one hand attest the
existence of pugiones still halfway through the III century,
but at the same time they confirm that their end was now
on its way. In fact, together with them there were also 14
daggers with blades between 231 and 389mm, of varied
shapes, some with parallel edges and other triangular. In
any case, there is no certainty. They could be the weapons
which Vegetius notes for the first time “…… those who
fought in front of the banners and also those in the first
row were called ‘principes’ (first level), that is to say the
ordinary ones, and the others were the officials. They made
up the heavy forces as they wore helmets, armour, greaves,
shields, bigger swords called spathae and other smaller
ones called semispathae, five lead javelins attached to
the
128 shields to be flung at the first assault … (omissis)”
, and then “after all the rows the triarii were placed
with their shields, armour and helmets, greaves, swords
and semi-swords, with lead javelins and two launching
weapons …”129 This work, written towards the end of the
IV century, shows us that there were short edge weapons
(semi-swords) which must have been very similar to the
longer spatha, considering that their name was derived
from this, and that they must probably have been in use for
a long period of time as they were distributed as a normal
part of the Roman panoply.
Pic. I/16: comparison between the pugio for each of the three periods
(on the left: Republican Period, in the centre Imperial Period, on
the right Final Period). Besides the evident variation of their sizes,
each one clearly shows all the characteristics mentioned in the text,
making it possible at a glance to see the evolution of the weapon.
(photo by the author)
‘ring-pommel’ type123, which allows us to have a temporal
reference.
Based on the morphological characteristics of the blade
and handle, and analogies with another specimen from
Krupice (Poland) it can, in fact, be placed at roughly the
second half of the II century124. Slightly later, an specimen
(no.59 appendix 2) found together with a spatha, a sword
butt and two pelta-shaped decorations (perhaps from
the sheath) all dating to the end of the II century or the
beginning of the third.
All this leads us to assert that the final moment of the
pugiones is to be placed roughly between mid III century,
possibly partly substituted by the semispathae, just as the
gladi had already been substituted by the spathae.
Let us conclude our investigation with a thought: just as
the birth of the pugio is a consequence of the necessity to
satisfy precise tactical requirements, in the same way its
end is connected to the suspension of these requirements;
this being a clear, ulterior confirmation of the pragmatism
of the Roman army.
It is much more complicated to identify the moment when
the use of the pugio ended.
The last temporal reference we know of for certain is an
important finding of an entire deposit of 51 blades and 29
sheaths in Kunzing (Germany) dating to approximately
250 thanks to some coins found with them, the latest of
which coming from Emperor Gordian (238-244). These
are often linked to the fall of the Limes in 259-260, even
if some experts believe that is could be the storage of
obsolete weapons125. What is important is that there are
no finds of pugiones beyond this date even if it is possible
that a modest use was made of them up until well into the
III century.
The reason for their disappearance could be connected to
tactical changes under Alexander Severus (reign from 222
such spatha, also known as “ringknaufschwerter”, appeared on the half of the II century a.C;
Marcin Birboski, “Typologie und chronologie der ringknaufschwerter”;
T. Fisher, “’Zwei neue Metallsammelfunde aus Künzing/Quintana” in Spurensuche;
126
Annamaria Liberati e Francesco Silverio, “Organizzazione militare, esercito”, vol. 5 del Museo della Civiltà Romana,1988;
127
Yann Le Bohec, “L’esercito Romano”, ed. Carocci;
128
Epitoma Rei Militaris, II, XV: “Sed ante signa et circa signa nec non etiam in prima acie dimicantes princeps uocabantur , hoc est ordinarii
ceterique principales. Haec erat graius armatura, quia habebant cassides catafractas ocreas scuta gladios maiores , quos spathas uocant et alios
minores , quos semispathia nominant, plumbatas quinas peritas in scutisquas primo impetu iaciunt…”
129
Epitoma Rei Militaris, II, XVI: “Post omnes autem acies trarii cum scutis , catafractis et galeis ocreati cum gladiis semispathiis plumbatis binis
missilibus locabantur ….”
123
124
125
24
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
24
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER II
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
The list of exemplars this data is based upon can be
consulted in Chapter IX.
A very uneven distribution can be noticed, with a net
concentration of exemplars on the limes of the Rhine and
High Danube, against a total absence in many other areas.
If we consider the entirety of the provinces which gravitate
around these areas (Germania superior, Germania inferior,
Raetia, Noricum, north-west Pannonia) over half the
finds are to be found in this zone. The only other two
provinces with a significant number of finds are Hispania
and Britain. One must bear in mind that those found in the
latter state are almost all concentrated in the southern part
of the country, whereas those in Hispania are mainly on
Celtiberian territory and predominantly from Period I.
Unfortunately, in many other provinces either no trace of
any exemplars has been found or too meagre a number
to be representative. The list of these provinces is the
following: all the provinces of Africa (including Egypt),
Italy, all the Middle East provinces (Palestine, Syria,
Cappadoccia, Galitia, Asia, Pontus, etc.), all the Hellenic
provinces (Achaia, Macedonia, Thracia), and Moesia,
Dacia and Pannonia.
The patchy nature of this distribution is too obvious to be
purely due to chance: it can only be the consequence of a
parallel, original distribution, concentrated in some areas
only.
One might also hypothesise that the lack of finds in these
provinces is simply caused by an unsuitable environment
for the conservation of metallic finds or by the scarcity of
scientific research.
In actual fact, there is evidence of widespread and
productive investigations in all of these regions, including
those carried out in Morocco (Mauretania), which have
brought to light a noteworthy quantity of finds including
numerous parts of gladius, helmets and spathae etc., but no
trace of pugiones2. Those carried out in Arycanda (Lycia)
have only brought a large quantity of offensive weapons to
light3. Even among the 600 finds of Dura Europos (Syria)
there is only a small and particularly deteriorated fragment
of 125mm, which could possibly have originated from
a pugio from Period III4; but this is too little to testify a
significant presence of pugiones in that area. Regarding
this last place, it is worth noting that the finds most
probably date towards the middle of the III century A.D.5,
that is to say towards the end of the period that pugiones
existed.
As the pugio was a military weapon, we would expect to
find its distribution in all the areas of the Empire, wherever
the Roman soldier was present, on a level with the gladius
or the helmet (even in their variants), but reality, instead,
is different. Its distribution is not homogeneous, and,
contrary to expectations, archaeological evidence suggests
that there was a considerable concentration in some areas
and a virtual absence in others.
Let us analyse the sources which bring us to this deduction
in order.
Archaeological Finds
While confronting archaeological finds the expert must
be more cautious than ever, because “ignorance of the
circumstances in which they were lost in those places can
lead to a false vision of reality”1. Nevertheless, it cannot
be denied that they are the primary source for in-depth
investigation on the subject of this chapter. Among the
many daggers that have been analysed, we will only take
into consideration those where the locality of the finding
has been adequately identified. We will leave out all
those which are out of context; those which consist of
fragments which are too small; and those which raise
excessive doubts as to their genuine association with
the Roman army. From this rigid selection it has been
possible to study and localise about 170. The numeric
results have been synthesised on table 1, on which both
the number of exemplars found for each province and
their percentage of the total finds has been reported.
Furthermore, in fig. II/1 and its three enlargements we can
have a quick and intuitive glance at the localisation of the
various finds within the territory of the Empire, with an
emphasis on the areas where we note an elevated number
of finds (maximum concentration); an inferior number; a
considerable number (average concentration); and finally
the isolated exemplars. From the enlargements we can,
then, obtain some detailed information on the localisation
of single exemplars and which historical period they
belong to.
TABLE 1
Distribution of the finds within the provinces of the Roman Empire
a) numerical distribution (on all specimens whose finding spot is known)
Hispania
Gaul
Britain
Germany
Italy
Raetia
Noricum
24
10
20
71
1(?)
26
4
Pannonia
Moesia
Dalmatia
Greece
Asia
Africa
Dacia
1
1
9
0
0
0
2
specimen
specimen
N.B.: As regards the single exemplar found in Italy, more precisely in Hercolaneum, there are doubts as to whether it can be classified as a pugio
due to its anomalous features.
1
2
3
4
5
M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston, “Roman Military Equipment – from the punic war to the fall of Rome”;
Christiane Boube-Piccot, “Les Bronze antique du Maroc”, ed. ERC;
Alptekin Oransay, “Roman military equipment at Arycanda”, J.R.M.E.S. n. 12713, ed. Armatura Press;
Simon James, “The excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters from 1928 to
1937”, British Museum Press
Simon Timothy James, “The arms and armour from Dura Europos, Syria
25
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
25
27/05/2012, 16.23
Fig II/1: finding spots of pugiones.
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
26
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
26
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER II - GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Fig II/1: finding spots of pugiones.
27
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
27
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Fig. II/2 map of The Roman Empire showing the localisation of the stelae with both pugio and gladius present.
28
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
28
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER II - GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Fig. II/3: Map of The Roman Empire showing the localization of the funerary stelae representing a soldier clearly in procintus, armed with
his gladius and often also with the javelin, but without his pugio. The number of stelae are marked within the related fields
(see Chap. VII – iconographic sources) in the Roman Province where the funerary stone was found.
29
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
29
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Iconography
the country. In other Roman provinces we only find four
isolated stelae: Britannia, Acaia, Egypt and Mauretania.
For some, the presence of the pugio is uncertain due to
the far from optimal state of preservation of the finds. As
regards the localization, for some finds incongruities are
reported: (Stela no.8) the funerary slab of Caius Valerius
Valens, Legionary of the Legio VIII Augusta, dating back
to the second half of the I century A.D., was discovered
in Corinth, Greece, but the Legion was never in that area
during that period. In fact, it is found to be working under
Nero in the clashes against the Sarmatians and Dacians;
following this, in Germania from 70 to 74, involved
both in squashing the Batavian revolt and in building an
important road. From 83 to 89 under Emperor Claudius,
it fought against the Chatti, a Germanic people stationed
near Mogontiacum. From this period onwards we find it
posted in Argentoratum.
The military connection with Greece, therefore, appears
completely unrelated to the original historical context.
-Stela no. 17): Marcus Lucillius Germanus was a
standarbearer who served in the II Legion Adiutrix. This
unit began its career in 70 A.D., suppressing the Batavian
revolt in Germania Inferior, after which it moved to
Britannia, Dacia and was finally stationed in Aquinqum
(modern-day Budapest). Its presence is never recorded in
Egypt, in which case it is possible that the tombstone was
in Alessandria for reasons other than the military activity
of the soldier. The only stela whose localization seems
to be completely anomalous and almost solitary is no. 2
positioned in Mauretania.
It is useful to note that some of the tombstones localized on
the Germanic Limes belong to soldiers serving in a legion
which was deployed over time in other imperial provinces,
but the only trace of the pugio is in those territories
Let us cite as an example the XIV Gemina Martia Vitrix
which the soldiers from stelae no. 7, 20 and 22 belonged to,
and where the symbol “●” indicates the only point where
stelae were found with the pugio: in 28-13 A.D. the Legion
was moved to Gallia on the Spanish border; following this
it was moved to the Lingoni territories (Gallia), from
13 A.D. to 16 A.D. to Mogontiacum (Germania) (●) in
43 to Britannia; in 60 to Gallia Narbonensis,; in 89-92
to Germania Superior; in 92 to Pannonia; in 198 to the
Funeral tombstones (stelae):
Identifying the station of the Legions or Cohorts which
the stelae belonged to is not always possible due to the
frequent incomplete state of the epitaphs. In most cases
the place where the monument was found coincides with
the area where the soldier in question was stationed, even
if there do exist various exceptions where this is not true.
It has been possible to examine over 200 stelae of soldiers6.
Of those depicting a representation of the pugio, 70.7% (29
monuments out of 41) are pinpointed to the Rhine-Danube
Limes. Germania Superior, with its 20 finds (48.7%) is
the Roman province where the greatest number of stelae
have been discovered with representations of dragons.
It included partially the territories of what are now
Switzerland, Germany and France, and for all the I century
A.D. it hosted four legions, which were reduced to two
following the conquest of Dacia. It must be remembered
that as well as the legions there were numerous auxiliary
units (cohorts of infantrymen and Ala cavalry), and the
sites where they were quartered are mainly to be found in
Mogontiacum and Argentoratae.
Germania Inferior is the second region hosting the most
stelae with pugiones (6 finds, 14.6%), the exact location
now corresponding with modern-day Netherlands and
western Germany.
The main fields were those of Castra Vetera and
Mogontiacum, from which all expeditions left in order to
conquer the Germanic territories.
After the defeat of Teotoburg in 9 A.D. four legions were
deployed there, which then became three under Domitian
and then two under Trajan. Pannonia, which was divided
into upper and lower by Traianus in 103, was a province
including the western part of what is now Hungary, a part
of Austria, the northern region of Croatia and a part of
Slovenia. In this province, together with Damatia, we
have the location of the finds of four stelae (9.7%).
A further concentration of monuments with a sculpted
pugio can be found in Italy, shown by 7 finds (16.6% of the
total), six of which were discovered in the northern part of
TABLE 2
Province
Tombstones with Pugio and Gladius
Tombstones with only the Gladius
Britain
16
29 – 44 – 46 – 48 – 51 – 82 – 129 – 132 – 136 – 179 – 203
Germania Inferior
19-30-32-39-40-41
104 – 125 – 145 – 161 – 162 – 193
Germania Superior
1-2-6-7-10-12-13-14-20-22-23-26-29-31-3334-35-36-37-38
7–9–39–41–107–112– 118
Raetia
202
Noricum
214
Pannonia/Dalmatia
5-4-24-25
4–154–180–189–191– 200–208–209–210– 218
Thracia
10–211
Cilicia
149
Achaia
8
Italy
9-11-15-18-21-27-28
Mauretania
3
77–87–122
Siria
23
Aegyptus
17
24?–181
Indefinite spots
1–15
Table 2: distribution of the stelae per province, distinguishing between those in which only the gladius is present and those in which there is the
co-presence of both gladius and pugio (for numeration see Chap. VII – iconographic sources).
6
On regards numeration of the stelae, see charter VII - iconographic sources-;
30
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
30
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER II - GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
countryside against the Parthians. The stela where a
dagger is depicted are traceable to the Germanic Limes,
whereas in all the other numerous places touched by this
Legion there is no sign of the pugio.
In this case, despite evidence apparently suggesting and
confirming a very precise territorial localization for the
presence of the pugio, the data should be observed with
greater caution than for that which is collected from
archaeological finds: the high concentration of stelae on
the Rhine-Danube Limes and in northern Italy can also be
due to “stehenden Soldaten”8 being a creative typology of
this area9.
If the monuments we have just looked at provide us with
very useful information, it is just as important to analyse
those in which the pugio is not present, but where we find
ourselves in the presence of the representation of a figure
armed with the gladius. It appears evident that it was the
sculptor’s intention to depict the deceased in procintus,
with all his panoply in so far as this was a source of
prestige, but it did not include the pugio.
Consequently, if we can understand from the former ones
in which areas the pugio was widely used, from the latter
ones, instead, we can realise where it was probably not
used, because otherwise it would most likely have been
depicted.
In this case the distribution of stelae seems to be reversed
(fig. II/3) in comparison with the former in so far as it has
a conspicuous total absence of exemplars in Germania and
by contrast a wide-spread distribution in almost all the
other provinces of The Empire.
A comparison between the two situations we have just
described can be more easily made by consulting the
following table no. 3.
The data referring to Germany stands out as having the
greatest number of stelae with pugio; as do those referring
to the Greek provinces, for having a large number of
soldiers depicted with a gladius but without a pugio.
Regarding the 7 stelae localized in Italy, it is worth
noting that two belonged to praetorians, well-known as
the normally stationed force steadily stationed on Italic
territory, but above-all that they come from Cisalpin Gaul.
The legions stationed on the Rhine front during the first
imperial age normally originated from the self-same land7,
so it may be hypothesised that the deceased soldier served
in Germania, but that he was then commemorated in his
native land.
Different Works:
The very famous Trajan column (Rome) and the monument
of Adamclisi (Romania) were both created in order to
commemorate the victories of Trajan in Dacia, and they
depict detailed scenes of soldiers in combat. Among these
the presence of a pugio cannot be spotted. I must point
out that the Trajan column is of top artistic quality: all the
scenes are reproduced with great care, craftsmanship and
abundance of details, even if the sculptor seems to yield to
artistic requirements in some places moving away from the
constraints imposed by a rigorous reproduction of reality.
This level of quality is excellently expressed by Ranuccio
Bianchi Bandinelli10 “…. form is reached in a supreme
way, the artist abundantly creates everything he wants to:
patches of courage with great consequence; heavy drapery
composed like architecture; drapery waving in the impetus
of the struggle, participating in the same energy as the
figures ….” The monument of Adamclisi is not of the same
artistic level, but it cannot be said that it lacks the ability
to communicate details of equipment. The absence of any
representation of the pugio, therefore, may reasonably be
interpreted as an absence within the panoply of the army
that fought in Dacia.
Also the column of Marcus Aurelius (Rome) does not
depict any pugiones. It was erected in commemoration
of the Emperor’s wars during the so-called Marcomannic
wars, mainly localized at the middle course of the Danube,
during which the Romans often fought against the lazigian
Sarmatians.
TABLE 3
number of stelae for each province, in wich the presence or absence of the pugio is certain
Hispania
Gaul
Britain
Germany
Italy
Raetia
Noricum
0
0
1
20
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
1
Pannonia
Moesia
Dalmatia
Greece,
Macedonia
Thracia
Asia
Africa
Dacia
in procintus,
with pugio
1
0
0
1 (?)
0
1
0
in procintus,
w.out pugio
2
0
1
7
2
1
1
in procintus,
with pugio
in procintus,
w.out pugio
N.B:
- In the stelae without pugio the subject is still visibly depicted as armed with a gladius and other weapons.
- The exemplar in Greece marked with a “?” is the stela no.8, for which doubts exist regarding the compatibility of its place of finding with its
original position.
- In Britain, the exemplar in the line “in procintus with pugio” is positioned in the south, whereas the two in the line “in procintus without
pugio” are both in the north.
7
8
9
10
11
Sergio Rinaldi Tufi, “Militari Romani sul Reno”, ed. Giorgio Bretschneider;
literally “standing soldiers”, term coming from german literature, which deeply studied the Roman military tombstones;
Sergio Rinaldi Tufi, op.cit.;
“il maestro delle imprese di Traiano”, Electa, 2003;
“Historiae”, libro IV, 29;
31
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
31
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Classics Literature:
Classics literature is the third and last source of
information. In most extracts the various authors describe
scenes out of military context, but, fortunately, there are
still some useful references:
- Tacitus11 skilfully describes a savage war scene during
the Batavian revolt of Julilus Civilis in 69-70 A.D.. In
this particular case the action takes place during a siege
of the fortified outpost of Duren, placed on the Rhine
between Cologne and Aquisgràn, hence well within
Germania Inferior.
- Tacitus12 again brings us back to Germania Inferior in
the year 47 A.D., more precisely on the Rhine where
Domitius Corbulo distinguished himself in the battle
against the Chauci and the Frisians (Germanic peoples
stationed in the north of the country) led by Gennascus.
- Cassius Dionysius13 cites the use of the pugio on the
part of the legions of Julius Caesar in the battle against
Ariovistus, which took place near the Rhine on the 10th
September 58 A.D.
These are the only existing quotations in classics literature
which refer to precise war actions in easily identifiable
settings14.
To this we may add two solitary clues, which indicate the
presence of the pugio in ‘abnormal’ places – if we may
call them so.
The first is Josephus Flavius, who, in his work set in Jewish
land16, describing the equipment of the Roman soldiers,
says: “Then they start moving, all marching in silence and
in an orderly manner, each one of them in their place, as
in battle, the foot soldiers covered in armour and helmets
and with a sword hanging on each side, the one on the left
quite long, whereas the one on the right is no more than a
span.17” This data, therefore, appears to contrast with what
has been pointed out up to now; in any case, it must be
noted that the extract seems to contain another unusual fact
when the author ascertains that the gladius was carried on
the left instead of on the right as was custom in that period.
This repeats itself a few lines later “…… the horsemen
are carrying a big sword on their right side …”, when it is
well known that they carried their swords on the left. It is
worth considering that even if this work is describing the
Jewish war, at this point Flavius is describing the Roman
army in general instead of making a precise reference to
the troops stationed in that land.
The second is a fragment of papyrus found in Egypt from
27 A.D., which relates an anecdote worth mentioning.
It is a notarial deed which describes a money loan to L.
Caecilius Secundus from the cavalry Corps Ala Paullini,
which offers a helmet, a silver phalera and the front of a
sheath, decorated in silver and ivory as security18.
Another extract by Tacitus must be mentioned15, in which
the action takes place, not in a war scenario as such, but
at a dramatic moment of civil war in 69. The author
describes the assassination of Galba and Piso, which took
place in Rome by Otho’s followers.
The centurion who clasps the pugio, however, is not
a legion, but rather a praetorian from one of Galba’s
praetorian cohorts, which at that moment was responsible
for Piso’s safety.
The setting is, therefore, in Rome, in a scenario of civil
war, not intended as a fight between organised armies as
could, for example, occur at Pharsalus between the legions
of Caesar and Pompeius, but rather as a moment in a
violent, armed brawl, with no precise war action, nor even
civil action, but only the confused movements of masses
of soldiers in prey to their rage and desire to kill.
The result of archaeological finds shows that the maximum
concentration of the Pugio is on the Germanic Limes
and on the high Danube. In Britannia there is a slightly
inferior but still considerable number, and there is almost
nothing in the rest of the areas of The Empire apart from
in Spain, which deserves being remarked on separately. In
fact, almost all the Spanish exemplars are on Celtiberian
territory, which, as we know, is the cradle of the Roman
pugio. Furthermore, most of the exemplars belong to
Period I, the most archaic, which means that some of them
may undeniably have belonged to Celtiberian auxiliaries.
From iconography we have a very similar picture; once
TABLE 4
6 A.D.
23 A.D.
80 A.D. ca.
100-110 a,D. ca.
Spain
4
3
1
1
Rhine Limes
5
8
7
4
Rhetia
2
/
/
/
Dacia
/
/
9
14
Moesia
3
2
4
7
Africa
5
Aegyptus
Orient
4
Pannonia
5
Dalmatia
2
1
1
2
2
1
4
6
6
4
2
1
2
2
/
Britain
/
/
4
3
Rome and Italy
9 praetorian cohorts
3 praetorian cohorts
16 praetorian cohorts
10 praetorian cohorts
Table 4: quantity of legions (cohorts in the case of Italy) in the various provinces of The Empire in approx I century A.D.
12
13
14
15
16
17
“Annales, libro XI, 18, 3;
“Storia Romana” libro XXXVII,49;
for the whole texts of these passages, see also chapter VIII – classic bibliography;
“Historiae”, libro I, 43;
De Bello Judaico, libr. III, [93] Ἔπειτα προϊόντες ὁδεύουσιν ἡσυχῇ καὶ μετὰ κόσμου πάντες, ὥσπερ ἐν πολέμῳ τὴν ἰδίαν τάξιν ἕκαστος φυλάσσων,
οἱ μὲν πεζοὶ θώραξιν πεφραγμένοι καὶ κράνεσιν καὶ μαχαιροφοροῦντες ἀμφοτέρωθεν. [94] μακρότερον δ’ αὐτῶν τὸ λαιὸν ξίφος πολλῷ: τὸ γὰρ κατὰ
τὸ δεξιὸν σπιθαμῆς οὐ πλέον ἔχει τὸ μῆκος;
translation by Giovanni Viticci, ed. Oscar Mondadori;
32
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
32
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER II - GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
again a net concentration on the Germanic Limes, modest
traces on the Danube, some exemplars in Italy, often
connected to Praetorian cohorts rather than regular military
corps, and almost nothing in the rest of The Empire.
Finally, three pieces of information, derived from classics
literature, are directly connected to geographically
identifiable war scenes which bring us once again back to
the Rhine. The exceptions consist in one situation, which
might be related to Italy, regarding a Praetorian, even if
not in a precisely war context, and two others, connected
respectively to Egypt and Judaea.
The passage of time has, therefore, generated a decisive
movement of the barycentre of the areas of distribution
of the pugio, moving from Spanish territory to those
which bordered on central Europe; and this phenomenon
continues with the advent of the third and last Period.
Even if it is in a less pronounced manner, we experience
a further geographic displacement, in this case towards
the most central part of the Danubian Limes. As we
know, the distribution in these zones was decidedly more
modest, but the information regarding the later exemplars
all focuses on south-eastern European territories along the
Danube. In this case we must, unfortunately, record a lack
of information, caused by the decontextualization of a
relevant number of available exemplars from Period III.
The phenomenon which stands out from this is that from
a geographical point of view the pugio was not a weapon
equally distributed among all the military departments
of the Roman army, as probably was the gladius and
obviously the helmet, but it was almost the exclusive
privilege of the troops on the limes of the Rhine and the
high Danube and low Britannia.
There is also another aspect underlining the peculiarity
of this situation; wherever this weapon was distributed
it was done so in massive quantities, so that almost no
soldier belonging to a certain corps was without one. On
the contrary, however, in the rest of the areas it was almost
totally unused.
The motivation for the uneven distribution of the daggers
cannot be simply explained away with the proportional
presence of troops in a certain territory, seeing as the facts
show the contrary. If we analyse the stationing of the
legions corresponding to Period II (as pictured on table 4)
excluding, for the sake of simplicity, the various cohorts
and vexilla, we can notice that on the Germanic front the
number of legions never exceeds roughly a third of the
total forces. This means that most of the legionaries were
stationed in the zones where the use of the pugio was not
distributed, which thus explains the lack of a direct and
proportional relationship between the presence of troops
and geographical distribution of the weapon.
Territories also existed where there was an elevated
concentration of soldiers because they were the stage for
war backgrounds. However, also in this case, if we exclude
a few single cases, such as Alesia, where the presence of
the pugio can be connected to the famous siege of Caesar,
most war backdrops sustained by Rome do not seem to
have any direct connection with the presence of pugiones.
It is most important to note that in those territories where
civil war took place, and Roman armies confronted each
other, there is no record of pugiones.
We may remember important war backdrops characterised
by the absence of the dagger. As far as Judaea is concerned,
Josephus Flavius20 tells us that in the years of the Judean
wars, there was at first only the legion X Fretensis, but
then from 67 to 70 A.D., when the rebellion transformed
into a true and proper war, the V Macedonia and the XV
Apolinnaris joined. We also know that from 132 A.D.
onwards two legions were permanently stationed there.
We, therefore, have a war backdrop with a violent war and
a good 3 legions involved, to which we add the auxiliary
corps, but no trace of the pugio. The only exception being
a one-off mention by the same above-mentioned Flavius.
In Dacia, instead, the first battles began already from
the penultimate decade B.C. when the Romans defeated
king Citiso. Once again we have an area, which for over
two centuries was the stage of great conflict, constantly
garrisoned by a large number of soldiers, but where the
presence of the pugio is quite modest.
The first of Trajan’s Dacian wars (101-102) was fought
with a good 14 legions plus auxiliaries, with a total of
150,000 soldiers21, during which 7 important battles can
be counted. The backdrop was so turbulent that between
102 and 105 twenty-six Roman garrisons are recorded.
The second Dacian war (105-106 A.D.) was fought with a
possibly larger number of soldiers; it is thought that there
were up to 16 legions. Then, after the end of the wars and
the subjection of Dacia as a province up until the time of
A further more in-depth study takes the form of an
analysis of the geographical distribution of the pugiones
distinguishing between the various historical periods the
pugiones belonged to.
From figure 1, and in particular from the three enlargements
which focalise the areas of greatest interest, as well as
from the statistics available in Chapter IX – exemplar data
base - we can see how at the beginning of their distribution
(Period I) the pugiones are almost all concentrated on
Hispanic territory, and Celtiberian in particular. The
archaic specimens are practically absent in all the rest of
The Empire with the sole exception of some sporadic finds
in Gallia, which can be connected to Caesar’s campaigns
for the conquest of that country. As stated earlier, it is
possible that these were partly connected to the Celtiberian
auxiliaries operating within the Roman army.
Following this, with the advent of Period II and the
beginning of the moment of maximum distribution of
the weapon, the Limes of the Rhine and in low Britannia
become the most involved areas. The specimens found
deeply within Germanic territory could be war booty
or part of arms trade, probably illegal, with the local
population. On this note, it is worth noting exemplar no.
199 (see Chapter IX), found in tomb No. A4103 belonging
to a male subject of Germanic stock, which was part of
a vast necropolis in Hedegard (peninsular of Jutland19)
together with other objects of Roman origin. It is perhaps
possible that he served as an auxiliary at the Limes, but
the remarkable distance of these territories, many placed
outside the Roman provinces and on full barbarian
territory, makes it probable to hypothesise that the dagger
was war booty.
The only exception to this geographical concentration
is the locality of the legionary base Siscia (modern day
Sisak, Croatia), attacked during a revolt in 6 A.D. by the
Pannonians and the Dalmatians, and which is not at all
close to the Rhine.
18
19
20
21
Sergio Daris, “Zeitschrift für papirologie und Epigraphik “78, 1989, 149-152; P. Vindob, L135;
Peter S. Wells, “la parola ai barbari”, ed. il Saggiatore;
“De bello Judaico”;
Radu Ardevan and Livio Zerbini, op. cit.;
33
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
33
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Mark Aurelius, that is for 150 years, at least two legions
were permanently positioned there together with 27
cohorts and an imprecise number of still unknown units.
Towards 169 A.D. on the occasion of the reorganisation of
the army in Dacia, the total number of forces permanently
based there reached 55,000 soldiers22.
We may add to this that Trajan, leader of the victory
over Dacia, had previously been governor of Germania
Superior and, therefore, certainly knew the pugiones and
their distribution in that area well, but nevertheless did
not equip his own legions, who fought in Dacia, with this
weapon.
Once having reflected upon the inexplicable, anomalous
geographical distribution of the pugio, there is nothing left
to do but examine the most significant matter: the reason
for this uneven geographic distribution.
The answer is closely connected to the function of the
weapon, which, being of prime importance, we will go
into in more depth in the appropriate chapter IV – Function
and Use.
22
Radu Ardevan and Livio Zerbini, op. cit.;
34
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
34
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER III
DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE ARMY
armours, swords, bows and arrows; there were slingers
who threw stones with slings and catapults, and the
trangulari who shot arrows with ballistic weapons,” 6 and
still “once the conflict had begun, the first and the second
rows remained immobile and even the triari remained still.
Instead, the ferentari, the armatura, the advance guards,
the archers and the slingers, that is to say all the light
troops, provoked the adversary, by placing themselves
in front of the array. If they managed to make the enemy
flee, they followed it closely. If, instead, they were forced
back by its power or number, they would return towards
their companions and position themselves behind them.
The battle was then taken up by the heavy troops who
erected a type of iron wall, so to speak, and led the battle
not only with javelins but also with hand-to-hand combat
using swords” 7, and finally “ ... at the back behind all the
rows the triari were placed, with their shields, armour and
helmets, greaves, swords, semispathae, with lead javelins
and the two launching weapons …”. 8
Vegetius, therefore, tells us quite clearly that the heavy
troops were equipped with a dagger, whereas the light
ones were without. This appears to be consistent with
the subdivision of the roles in combat; in fact, the heavy
infantry were not assigned to following the enemy,
but rather to supporting direct combat - even hand-tohand - whereas the light infantry had to carry out faster
displacements, and they were not expected to carry out
battle at close quarters. It is evident, therefore, that the
pugio would not have been any use to the latter, and
might even have been a hindrance, causing supplementary
weight and encumbrance; whereas, we can see that it was
fundamental for the troops who would possibly have to
face direct combat.
Information on the military corps who were equipped
with the pugio can be obtained largely from funerary
tombstones and literary sources; whereas nothing can be
deduced from the exemplars which have been found, as it
is not possible to make any kind of connection to a specific
corps or a military title from the symbols present on the
weapons or their relative sheaths (with the single exception
of no. 195). The pugiones certainly do not appear to have
been used by all the corps of the Roman army, but, based
on evidence from the analyzed stelae, it seems possible to
assign them with certainty only to some: those which we
are going to look at closely now.
Legionary and auxiliary infantrymen
Between the Legionary Soldier and the Auxiliary there
was an important difference. The historian, Vegetius,
defines this when he states that “the infantry is made up
of two parts:” the auxiliary troops and the legions. The
auxiliary troops were supplied with allies and federates;
the Roman power is, instead to be seen above-all in the
organization of the Legion.” 1 This difference was not,
however, merely limited to the soldiers’ place of origin,
but was also to be found in the fighting technique. In fact,
as Vegetius explains to us again, “the auxiliaries, when
led into battle, come from different regions and different
units; they have nothing in common as regards their
training, type of knowledge, or aptitudes. Their traditions
are varied; their experience in arms is varied …..the
Legion, instead ……. is complete in every part, without
the need for any external ancillary troops, and in this way
is usually superior to any number of enemies.” 2 Despite
this fundamental difference in weaponry and fighting
techniques, both types of infantrymen were equipped
with the pugio (in the stelae the legionaries presenting the
pugio make up 7.46% of the total, whereas the Auxiliaries
42.85%). In the quotations no distinction is made between
Legionaries and Auxiliaries, and the use of the pugio
is broadly described both when the heavy weaponry of
the infantrymen is listed as: “helmets, armour, greaves,
shields, bigger swords called spathae, and other smaller
ones called semispathae, five lead javelins attached to the
shields ready to be thrown at the first attack;”3 and when
facts of military life are described: referring to how the
sentinels were armed4, as well as in a battle episode on the
betterments of a fort.5
However, it is Vegetius himself, as he continues writing,
who leads us to make a distinction between heavy infantry
and light infantry, when we read: “after them came the
ferentarii and the light troops, who we nowadays call
advance guards and armatura, and the soldiers with their
shields who carry leaded javelins, swords and launching
weapons, in the way that almost all soldiers are armed
these days. There were also archers equipped with helmets,
Centurions
The definition of this figure as “petty officer” derives
from modern military jargon - more from a necessity to
understand than as a specific historical reference.
The centurions were placed in command of the centuries:
basic units of the legion normally composed of 80-100
men, which in groups of two in the Republican age formed
a maniple. Following this, in the Imperial Age, in groups
of six they formed a cohort.
The centurions each had varying ranks, the most
prestigious of which being the so-called primipilus or
primus pilus, who was in charge of the first order of the
first cohort.
Their role was particularly sought after because of the
honour attached to it, despite it being often necessary to
demonstrate an out-of-the-ordinary degree of competence
and courage. On this line, we recall a powerful episode
narrated by Julius Caesar9, where the two protagonists
were centurions, Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus, who
“vied with each other with fierce rivalry for promotion
each year.”
The centurion’s weaponry was very similar to that of the
legionaries he commanded over, except for the helmet,
which was provided with a transverse crest, to distinguish
him and make him easy to detect by the soldiers. This
Vegetius, “Epitoma Rei Militaris”, book II, ch.1;
Vegetius, op. cit, book II ch. 2;
Vegetius, op. cit., book II, ch. XV;
4
Tacitus, “Annales”, book ch. IX;
5
Tacitus, Historiae, book ch. IV;
6
Vegetius, op. cit., book II, ch. XV;
7
Vegetius, op. cit., book II, ch. XVII;
8
Vegetius, op. cit., book II, ch. XVI;
9
Julius Caesar “De Bello Gallico”, book V, ch. 44;
1
2
3
35
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
35
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Standard bearers (signiferi)
“Signifer” is the Latin term which was generally used
to indicate the standard bearer whose function in battle
was of utmost importance, as they represented the visual
reference point for all the soldiers of a given unit. Vegetius
explains to us that “nothing is more useful for victory
than the obedience of orders given in the form of signals.
In fact, seeing that it is impossible in the tumult of battle
to command an army by voice alone, and that, according
to the urgency of the situation, there are many orders
to be given and followed immediately, a procedure was
historically established in all nations where everything
which seemed opportune to the general could be
acknowledged and followed by means of signals on the
part of the whole army. The types of signals are generally
three: vocal, semi-vocal and silent … Silent signals are
instead in the shape of eagles, dragons, banners, red flags,
plumes; wherever the commanding officer has decided to
have them brought, that is the place where the soldiers
who are following those banners must head.” 11
The importance of the hidden role of the Signifer is
exemplified in the account by Julius Caesar where the
Aquilifer, on the disembarkation of the Roman troops on
the Britannic coasts represents the gathering point and the
symbol of the Legion to be protected at the cost of life
itself. 12
The standard bearers, as a reference point for all those
belonging to the corps, were normally placed in the first
row in front of everyone, and at the centurion’s side,
from whom they took orders. Since his duty consisted
in holding the banner with both hands, his role was not
of only that of a warrior, and this was reflected in his
unusual weaponry. The standard bearers were protected by
helmets, by the lorica, by a small, round shield (parmula)
and, symbolically by the hide of a lion or bear, whose
winning power against the enemy the Legion personified.
13
We also notice from the stelae that the offensive weapons
depicted were the gladius, and the pugio in 29.41% of the
representations, but never the pilum or the lance. Of the
5 stelae originating from Germanic territory we must
point out that they all depicted both the gladius and the
pugio. We then have 2 stelae in which the soldier appears
armed with a gladius but without the pugio; one, which
was found in Italy, dates to the III century, and one was
found in Egypt. None of the pictures of standard bearers
on horses - at times armed with a spatha and sometimes
completely unarmed – allow us a glimpse of the presence
of a pugio.
Fig. III/1: a detail from the tombstone of the centurion Titus Calidius
Severus; one can note the helmet with the transverse crest. (drawing
by the author).
characteristic consequently meant that also the enemy
could identify him with the same ease, and in fact, the
centurion’s mortality rate was higher than the legionaries’
themselves. The centurions also had the characteristic of
carrying the pugio on their right and the gladius on their
left, the opposite to the legionaries.
It has been possible to examine 14 centurions’ stelae, 5 of
which are illegible (either due to a bad state of preservation
or because they were originally made without any images),
6 show the subject without his weapon or at most with just
his lorica and helmet, and finally 3 present the subject with
his weapons, 2 of which are with a sculpted pugio. When
the centurion is presented with his complete panoply, we
see the pugio always appears together with the gladius.
Unfortunately, memorials in ancient Rome served the
function of accentuating the prestige the deceased had
reached in life, for which reason we frequently find only
the elements which best represented the military rank
sculpted on the stelae; for the centurion these were his
grapevine baton and his helmet with the traverse crest
– which compromises comprehensive information on his
weaponry. However, we can assume that the centurion
was armed in the same way as his own soldiers, as can be
inferred from the various stelae depicting the panoply; and
since he was a miles of the first line, there is no reason for
him to possess weaponry dissimilar to the legionaries he
commanded.
The optiones collaborated with the centurions, but their
role is less clear. Rather than true assistants to the centurion,
they may have had the function of substituting them when
they were put out of action (which may explain their name
optio = option)10. There are only 3 stelae to be looked at
closely without highlighting the presence of the pugio.
Cavalrymen
The role of the cavalryman was in contrast to the type of
close combat action in war where the pugio was useful.
In fact, the cavalrymen used the lance or the spatha as
an offensive weapon: long weapons, therefore more
appropriate for slashing the target at a distance.
No tombstone presents an image that is incontrovertibly
a pugio. All the images depict both the horseman and the
horse from the right, and the hypothesis that the pugio could
be on the left-hand side, the side which is not visible on the
stelae, is disproved when we observe Cusides’ stela: the
only cavalryman depicted on his left side and belonging
to the auxiliary corps. This observation is consistent with
Vegetius op. cit. book II, ch. VII, 4
Vegetius op. cit., book III, ch. V;
Julius Caesar, “De Bello Gallico” book IV, ch. 25;
13
A. Cattabiani e M.C. Fuentes, “Bestiario di Roma”, ed.Newton Compton nota VII/33; C. Sighinolfi, “I guerrieri lupo nell’Europa arcaica. Aspetti della
funzione guerriera e metamorfosi rituali presso gli indoeuropei”, Rimini 2004;
10
11
12
36
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
36
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER III - DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE ARMY
the description of the Roman Cavalry made by Flavius
Josephus where, on the occasion of the Judaic war, he
describes the weaponry of the cavalrymen in detail: “the
cavalrymen carry a big sword on their right and grasp a
long spear, the shield is held across the flank of the horse
and in a quiver there are three or more darts with long
points, not shorter than the spears; the helmet and the
armour are the same as those of all the infantrymen.”14 The
war function of a cavalryman is quite different from that of
the infantryman seeing that, having to fight from the horse’s
saddle, he needed long weapons (the spatha, the spear) or
throwing weapons (javelins or arrows). A pugio would have
been logical only if the cavalrymen had been a military
corps made to face ground combat. There is a passage by
Tacitus15 where hand-to-hand combat is mentioned between
cavalrymen and barbarians, but use of the pugio is not.
The only exceptions to what has been said may be found
on a stela and quotation. The remark on the cenotaph of
Respectus, an explorer belonging to the auxiliary cavalry,
gives us a possible exception, consistent with his own war
activity. On his right, instead of a spatha we can catch a
glimpse of what might be a semispatha, or in any case a
short weapon, as well as two javelins and a shield held
with his left hand. In any rate, the state of preservation of
the finding is, unfortunately, not at all good and does not
allow us any certainty.
Fig. III/3: detail from the stela of Caius Ottiedius Attianus, dating to
the III century, in which appear what are almost certainly a spatha
and a semispatha. (drawings by the author).
From the 10 tombstones of Pretorians examined, three
show the image of a pugio.
- the stela of Lucius Marius Vernus, without an image of
the deceased, was found on the territory of the ancient
city of Tabula Mutuesca (modern-day Monteleone
Sabino, Rieti) near Rome;
- the stela of Firmidius Rufus, dating to the I century;
the stela of Caius Ottiedius Attianus, also without an
image of the deceased, pictures a probable spatha and a
semispatha, temporarily consistent with the dating of the
find to the III century
In the quoted fragment of an Egyptian papyrus dating 27
B.C., we find a notarial deed which describes a money
loan to L. Caecilius Secundus from the cavalry corps
Ala Paullini, who offers as a guarantee the front of a
sheath embellished with silver and ivory.16 The fact that
a cavalryman was in possession of such an object could
be explained in two ways: the first is that he had this
weapon as part of his battle equipment; the second is that
he possessed it only as a precious object, its value being
proven by the fact that it was used as a means of security.
Finally we have five quotations which mention the pugio
on the part of the Praetorians.
Tacitus 18, describing the disorder in Rome during the
civil war of 69 A.D., tells us that “Sempronius Densus,
centurion of the Praetorian cohort, died by a pugio while
defending Piso, the adoptive son of Galba.”
The Scriptores Historiae Augustae report two facts. The
first is described by Aelius Spartianus 19, who narrates the
killing by pugio of the Emperor Caracalla by Martial, an
imperial guard; whereas the second is described by Aelius
Lampridius 20, who reports news about a pugio, not as a
weapon but as a nickname given to a freedman after his
having been appointed Praetorian prefect.
Finally, S. Aurelius Victor 21 relates an account of the
symbolic value of command given to the pugio: “So,
trusting honesty, he often reprimanded Suburanus, prefect
with the title of Praetorian, while he was handing over the
pugio, symbol of power, according to tradition : ’I entrust
you with this for my defence, if you act correctly; but if you
behave differently, it would rather be used against me’:
therefore, may he who is the advisor of all be permitted to
make least mistakes.”
Praetorians
The Praetorian corps were always an elite corps, and until
the end of the I century A.D. it only recruited individuals
of Italic origin, even if subsequently Dalmatians and
Pannonians became a part of it. 17 This military unit had
the duty of being bodyguard to the Emperor, even if they
were not infrequently taken to the front, especially during
the civil wars. Already from mid I century A.D. they began
to acquire great power in appointing new emperors, and
they held a fundamental role in the election of Claudius
after the killing of Caligula. This power decreased during
the period of Flavian’s dynasty until the election of
Commodus in 181.
Unlike the legionaries, posted along the borders of The
Empire, they possessed the enormous privilege of having
their castra praetoria (the Praetorian camp) right in the
capital between the Viminal and the Esquilin, just outside
the city walls.
Officials, figures of high rank and Emperors
The important figures belonging to elevated ranks do not
have images to represent them together with the pugio,
nevertheless, numerous quotations exist which attest its
use by them.
The superior roles within the Roman army were filled by
non-military figures who held the position temporarily
Flavius Josephus, “The Jewish war”, III, 5,5, 94-9;
Tacitus, “Agricola”, 37;
P. Vindob. L135. Gilliam, 1981: 277-280;
17
Yann Le Bohec, “L’esercito romano”, ed. Carocci;
18
Tacitus, “Historiae,”, book I, ch. 43;
19
Scriptores Historiae Augustae, book XIII Antoninus Caracallus, ch. 7;
20
Scriptores Historiae Augustae, book VII Commodus Antoninus, ch. 6;
21
S. Aurelius Victor “Historiae abbreviatae - vulgo: Liber de Caesaribus” – Ch.13;
14
15
16
37
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
37
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
like Otho, used it as a symbol of power, life and death 41;
Domiziano, instead, attempted to defend himself from his
assassin with this weapon 42; whereas Adriano attempted
suicide; and finally Flavius Claudius Julianus committed
suicide with a pugio 43.
for the development of their political career, the so-called
“Cursus Honorum”, during which the mixture of power
and military and political tasks was considerable, in fact
“no one is allowed to take up public office without having
served ten years in military service first.” 22
There are two quotations in which two military officers
are reported to have used the pugio. The first is reported
by S. Julius Frontinus 23, in which he narrates that General
Sertorius used a pugio to kill a messenger who had brought
onto the battle field news of the death of his commander;
the second handed down by M. Tullius Cicero 24, where he
tells about Galba, Julius Caesar’s lieutenant, who wore a
pugio which he used when he participated in the dictator’s
assassination.
More than 60 senators took part in the conspiracy against
Julius Caesar, among which was Caius Cassius, praetor
peregrinus, and Marcus Brutus, praetor urbanus. Also
some caesarians joined the conspiracy, among whom was
Decimus Brutus, designated consul for the following year,
and Trebonius, one of Caesar’s best generals destined for
the consulate in 42 B.C.
The ancient authors who described the assassination,
quoting the use of the dagger on the part of the senators, are
M. Tullius Cicero 25, C. Sutenoius Tranquillus 26, Orosius
27
, Frechulfus Lexouiensis 28, Iohannes Sarisberiensis 29
and Rodericus Ximenius de Rada 30. There are also other
quotations which narrate the connection between the
pugio and men with political posts as reported by Valerio
Massimo 31who writes about Publius Clodius Pulcher who
“in attaching his pugio to Fulvia’s robe, tamed his soldier’s
pride, and subjected himself to the power of a woman;”
by Granius Licinianus 32, who relates the story of Papirius
Mutilius who, on the occasion of the Sillian proscriptions
lists, escaped from the Sicarians by defending himself
with a dagger; by Tacitus 33 who describes the conspiracy
of Senator Scevinus against Nero; and finally Ammianus
Marcellinus34, who relates the wounding of Emperor
Commodus by Senator Quinzianus.
On the theme of the use of the pugio by emperors, there
are numerous quotations which confirm this practice.
Augustus used one before he became Emperor 35; Caligola
exploited the lethal meaning of the weapon which he listed
in his booklet entitled “Pugio”, enemies to be eliminated
36
. Nero first used his own pugio to falsely accuse his
mother’s slave of her attempted assassination, which he
himself had engineered 37, and then he used the dagger
to attempt vainly to commit suicide 38. Servant Sulpicius
Galba used it as a symbol of power 39, Marcus Salvius
Otho used it to commit suicide 40; Aulo Vitellius, just
We can, therefore, conclude that the pugio was not
homogeneously distributed within all the various troops
of the army.
It is certainly most frequently recorded in the heavy
infantry (hence the geographical limitations seen) both
legionary and auxiliary, whereas the light infantry does
not seem to have been equipped with it. The same is true
for the centurions, having an active role within the heavy
infantry, and also for the standard bearers - however,
within the limits of the infantry stationed in Germany.
Among cavalrymen no significant presence is recorded.
For the Praetorians the picture is less clear; it is certain
that they could have used the pugio, but probably not
constantly as the heavy infantry did. While awaiting new
evidence which might help us understand more, it is now
only possible to assume that within this corps its use was
connected to bizarre historical moments or unusual duties
which single units were assigned to.
Finally, it was also used by individuals of high rank,
who, by means of their “Cursus Honorum”44 had had
the opportunity to get to know it and learn how to use it.
Literary sources show us how important figures, such as
officials, senators and emperors only used it for “civil”
purposes outside the battle context: using it as a means
for suicide; a symbol of death or power; the main weapon
for assaults and attacks - evidently appreciating it for its
lethality and the ease with which it could be hidden among
the folds of the toga.
In this way we have confirmation of the “where” of our
weapon - seen in the previous chapter - and we anticipate
the “why” - which will be dealt with in depth in the
following chapter: we see it only being used by whoever
really needed to 45, and in the war backdrops where this
was probably the case 46.
Polibio, “Historiae”, VI 19;
“Strategemata” - book: 2, ch. 7;
“M. Antonium orationes Philippicae”, Oratio: 13, ch.: 33;
25
“ M. Antonium orationes Philippicae” Oratio: 2, par.: 28 e 30;”Epistulae ad Atticum”, “Liber: 2, epist.: 24, par.2, 3» ;
26
“De vita caesarum Divus Iulis”, ch. 82 e 89;
27
“Historiarum adversum paganois», libri vii Cl. 0571, vol. II, lib.: 6, cap.: 17 ;
28
«Historiarum » libri XII - pars : 1, liber : 7, cap. 9
29
«Policraticus, tom. II, lib.:8, cap.15 e 19;
30
«Policraticus» tom. II, lib.:8, cap.:15 e 19;
31
«Facta et dicta memorabilia», book 3 ch. 5;
32
«Operis historici fragmenta codice rescripto servata», book: 36,10
33
«Annales», Liber XV – ch. 54;
34
«Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt «, book: 29, ch.: 1 ;
35
Seneca , “De Clementia” - book 1 ch. 9;
36
Svetonius, “De Vita Caesarum – Caligola”, ch. 49;
37
Tacitus, “Historiae”, book III, ch. 68;
38
Svetonius, “De vita Caesarum – Nero”, ch. 49;
39
Svetonius, “De Vita Caesarum – Galba” ch. 11, 1;
40
Tacitus, “Historiae”, book II, ch. 49; Svetonius, “De vita Caesraum - Otho”, 11;
41
C. Svetonius Tranquillus, « De vita Caesarum, Vitellius », ch.15,.4;
42
Svetonius, «De Vita Caesarum – Domitianus», ch. 17;
43
Aurelius Victor, «pseudo-Libellus de uita et moribus imperatorum breuiatus - Epitome de Caesaribus», Ch.: 39 ;
44
Whole of political and military offices, to be compulsorily made by who was aspiring to political offices ;
45
See chapt. “IV – function and use”
46
See chapt. “II- geographical distribution”
22
23
24
38
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
38
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER IV
FUNCTION AND USE
functions, such as cutting food or branches, peeling
branches; used as a final weapon defence, as its capacity
to harm in combat was very modest.” 8
None of these statements are verifiable: they are no more
than simple – at times imaginative - deductions on the part
of each author on how the Roman dagger could have been
used.
With this exposition we will attempt to supply some
answers based on historical and archaeological evidence
and, when this is not possible, we will limit ourselves
to stating that which this weapon certainly was not. In
fact, as Flavio Russo states: “however reductive it may
appear, a historical investigation cannot demonstrate the
truthfulness of a hypothesis, but only the contrary. Using a
comparison: we are not in a position to establish the owner
of a pair of shoes size 41, which were fortuitously found,
but only to exclude those who, wearing another size,
cannot be the owner.” 9
As seen in the previous chapters, the Celtiberian origin of
the Pugio is certain, and for this population it had both
a symbolic and practical function as a military weapon.
In Celtic populations, as also in the Etruscan ones, the
possession of a weapon was, in fact, related to the social
status of the warrior and, therefore, the free man, and
its presence in the tombs served to bear witness to this
social condition.10 From the I century B.C. onwards the
association of the Pugio with the Roman army is certified
once and for all, and also in this context it held both
the function of symbol and weapon. In fact, as we have
already pointed out in the chapter on Latin quotations,
the dagger is frequently associated with a symbol of
power, “cum insigne potestatis”11, with the power of life
or death over citizens “lus necis vitaeque civium”12, but
always in the context of imperial figures (Galba, Vitellius,
Trajan). In an account by S. Julius Frontinus13, the use of
the Pugio by a general is described: “Quntius Sertorius,
while he was fighting on the battle field, used his pugio to
stab the foreigner who had brought him news of Irtuleius’
death, so that he wouldn’t pass it on to others and weaken
their spirit with this fact.” It was a personal action on the
part of General Sertorius towards a messenger who had
informed him of the death of his lieutenant Irtuleius by the
hands of the enemy army commanded by Metellus. Even
if this killing occurs during battle, it would seem that the
assassination took place during an interview, which does
not prove nor even disprove that the weapon was a normal
part of an official’s equipment. However, we need to make
some clarifications which contradict what has been stated
so far. First of all, the pugio is not the only military object
with a symbolic value for the army, as there are also other
objects which define the status of the Roman soldier: the
cingulum14, the caligae15 and the padulamentum16. Besides,
the use of the Pugio has been certified only on the stelae
of soldiers and non commissioned officers (centurions),
whereas it is absent from the statues and sarcophaguses
belonging to imperial figures or military figures of high
No precise historical definition exists for the real function
of the Pugio because Latin quotations and archaeological
finds (both of the weapons themselves and of images
of them) are often found to be incomplete and hence
insufficient for an exhaustive reconstruction. This fact
has caused numerous modern authors often to make
claims dictated more by intuitive logic rather than real
confirmation. We cite some of these definitions below:
- “…for a soldier to carry a dagger was more an issue of
prestige than a real necessity, so that in the production of
such an artefact greater attention was given to tradition.
To be sure, a dagger could come in handy in a fight, but
it was not the main weapon and it was unsheathed only
when a soldier lost both the sword and the spear. Apart
from providing a means of defend in extreme need, it
appears to have primarily served as a status symbol…
”1.
- “The study of daggers and their scabbards is complex,
but no aspect of this is of particularly helpful in telling
us what the weapon was used for. With blade of between
250 and 350mm, it was clearly a formidable weapon to
have as a back-up should the sword be lost or damaged,
and we need not view it solely as a “boy-scout” knife
used for eating meals or whittling wood.”2
- “This lack of development in dagger design is the
result of the Roman attitude to these weapon, which
they regarded as prestige items rather than as part of
their fighting equipment…The dagger was primarily
the outward display of its wearer’s power, though it
remained an effective fighting weapon. “3
- “The pugio was used in hand-to-hand fighting, probably
as a spare weapon.”4
- “Reserve weapon; Additional weapon, perhaps used
above-all in activities carried out every day during a
campaign.”5
- “Supplementary or reserve weapon; Over time it
assumes the character of a simple ornament, without an
effective war function.” 6
- “The craftsmanship is far too refined, to the point that
it was kept more as an ornament than as a fighting
weapon.” 7
- The pugio was not part of the military standard
equipment of the legionary …. but a distinguishing
element and for military parades. Due to the rich
decoration that it sometimes exhibited, we can say that
in the tombstones it assumes a symbolic meaning for the
equipment, as there is no image of soldiers using the
pugio. In any case, it could also have been used for other
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Ivan Radman-Livaja, “Militaria Siscensia”, Musei Archaeologici Zagrabiensis Catalogi et monographiae vol. 1 pp 47;
M.C. Bishop & J.C.N.,” Coulston, Roman military equipment – from the punic war to the fall of Rome”, pp 85;
Michel Feugere, “Weapons of the Romans”pp 126;
R. D’Amato and G. Sumner,”Arms and Armour of the Roman imperial soldier” ed. Frontline books, pp 96;
Adrian Goldsworthy, “Storia completa dell’esercito Romano”, Ed. Logos;
Giuseppe Cascarino, “L’esercito Romano – armamento e organizzazione”, Ed. Il Cerchio;
Flavio Russo “Sotto l’Insegna dell’Aquila, storia dell’esercito Romano dalla Repubblica all’Impero”, Ed. Stato Maggiore dell’Esercito;
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez: “Equipamiento armamentistico del legionario altoimperial”;
Flavio Russo and Ferruccio Russo, “Indagine sulle Forche Caudine”, ed. Rivista Militare;
Eugenio Polito, “Carri da guerra e principi etruschi”, exhibition catalogue, Ed. L’Erma di Bretschneider;
S. Aurelius Victor “Historiae abbreviate”, ch. 13;
Tacitus, Historiae , book III, ch. 68;
“Strategmata”- book 2 ch. 7;
Iuvenalis, “Satire”, 16.48. He told that, to punish some soldiers, they had been prevented to use it;
Flavio Giuseppe “Guerre giudaiche”, 6.85; Svetonio, “De vita Caesarum Caligulae vita, IX”; Petronius, “Satyricon” XI, 82;
Svetonio , “Galba”, XI;
39
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
39
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
soldiers could obtain them in the form of medallions,
armillae, Torcs, etc. Svetonius describes that Augustus
“conferred decorations very easily, the necklaces and all
the other emblems in gold or silver as well as obsidian and
mural crowns, whose value was purely honorary.”21 From
this quotation we can deduce that the Pugiones in style I
and III, if they had been dona, given the simplicity of the
materials with which they were made, they could have
been considered a prize for valour and consequently, as
explained by Svetonius, aimed at the soldiers.
The explanation that the Pugio should be considered a
donum, contrasts with numerous pieces of evidence. It
is strange that a donum, as a prize for worthy military
action, could be so widespread among soldiers (see the
number of archaeological finds and presentations on the
stelae) and also that it was not awarded to the soldiers
in all the Empire but only those who were fighting in
certain provinces. It is also difficult to believe that the
meaning/symbolic value of the Pugio changed over time,
and that it only acquired an importance of economic value
in the I century A.D., in comparison with the Pugiones in
style I and III. Not to mention the last and possibly most
important consideration that this dagger has never been
quoted by the ancient writers as a donum.
Regarding the observation on the part of many modern
authors that such a preciously decorated dagger could be
incompatible with a war weapon, it must be noted that
contemporary weapons to the pugiones from Period II (I
century A.D.) were also richly decorated and embellished,
which removes from the dagger the unique sophistication
and luxury normally upheld by modern literature and
which, from a modern-day point of view, expresses a
concept in antithesis with the war spirit. It can be noted,
for example, that in the I century A.D. the sheaths of gladi
- being the same typology of weapon – matched the sheaths
of the pugiones best, as they also had numerous, precious
fittings (which were embossed or applied) - and this was a
case of mass production for all the simple soldiers and not
only the officials.
Fig. IV/1: decoration on the sheath of a gladius from the Roman Vindonissa-Museum (Switzerland). It shows a barbarian prisoner in a
state of submission, and can be found completely identical on many
other sheaths, which implies mass production despite the quality,
destined for a significant number of soldiers. (photo by the author).
rank, thus creating a dichotomy between that which is
narrated by ancient writers and what can be noticed on
funeral reliefs.
The symbolic value of the Pugio has been considered
by many modern authors as the predominant element
of this weapon, basing their conviction on the presence
of decoration and precious metals which were used to
make these daggers and their sheaths. For example, B.
Thomas from the university of Kiadò (Budapest), taking
up a concept already expressed by Gonzeback, states
that the pugio “was awarded to officials as a prize for
victory or a battle”, whereas Herbert Westphal17 expresses
the concept that even if “ its luxurious and ornamental
character prevails … this does not mean that its capacity
as a weapon is in any way devaluated”.
First of all, it is necessary to notice the fact that the
evolutionary history of the Pugio passes from a type I
dagger, whose sheath and handle are without decoration
and not embellished with precious metals, and then
develops into type II, with the characteristic luxurious and
ornamental decoration, to finally arrive at type III, which
seems to be a regression with its ornamental features and
materials reminiscent of style I. This fact is incompatible
with an object that was born and used exclusively as
a symbolic element. We can add to this the fact that,
while we know types of weapons that essentially have a
symbolic meaning beyond their actual use in war, such
as the “Parma” (the round shield for the cavalry, symbol
of the Equestrian Order), the lorica muscolata and the
greaves (which by definition were the officers’ armour),
the Hasta Pura18, the Clipeus Virtutis19, etc. nothing of
this kind has been bequeathed to us regarding the Pugio.
Expatiating on the Dona Militaria20 (as pugiones were
hypothesised to be a military decoration by some modern
authors): these were recompenses for valour, and simple
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The decorations on some contemporary helmets are no
less, despite their belonging to simple soldiers, and having
been made with such sophistication that one could hardly
associate them with the brutal figure of a soldier.
Also Christian Koepfer in “The Legionary Equipment”22,
describing the equipment during the Augustan Age,
confirms this concept: “ the helmet of Haltern has a bronze
skull tending towards red with the “brow guard” tending
towards yellow (an alloy of copper, tin and zinc) … In some
cases the decorative bosses of these helmets have red coral
or enamel inlays, and an analogous characteristic can be
found in the pugiones and their sheaths ...”.
Finally, if we observe the appliqués which decorate
the soldiers’ belts, we see that these are also extremely
decorated, precious and sophisticated. There are many
representations of these, and there is no lack of pictures
of only roses and palms, typical also of the pugiones
sheaths23.
For the Pugio, therefore, as the symbolic function is not
predominant (just like all the other issued weapons) the
in “Ein römischer Prunkdolch aus Haltern”;
gift for the most brave soldiers;
Eugenio Polito, op. cit.;
awards for meritorius soldiers;
Svetonius, “Augustus”, XXV, 3-4;
“Ancient Warfare” 2009;
on this matter, see chapter “VI- sheaths “;
40
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
40
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER IV - FUNCTION AND USE
practical function must be favoured; that is to say as a
war dagger. In order to understand its functions better, we
will try to describe its structure and shape, examining the
single parts it is made of.
HANDLE. A metal handle, mainly with an irregular
surface, inducing a high level of friction with the skin of
the hand, thus easily causing the appearance of wounds,
which is enhanced by sweat not being absorbed by a
porous material, such as wood or bone. Consequently, this
weapon was conceived for short activity, as prolonged use
would be harmful for the owner’s hand.
GUARD. The absence of a guard excludes this dagger
from possibly having been used for double-edged fencing,
as in the medieval period, as it would not have been able to
counter the attack. The pugio, in fact, just like the gladius,
is a weapon of attack, made for stabbing with its point. The
defensive action against the adversaries’ blows was meant
for the shield.
BLADE. Examining the type of wound that it could
cause, it is clearly a lethal weapon. In fact, it is a dagger
made to stab with its point and not to cut. The willowleaf shape of the blade causes an enlargement of the
wound as the blow is deepened. Besides this, whether the
weapon is gripped as a “hammer” or a “screwdriver”, it
undergoes a rotation during its extraction, which, due to
the double-purpose blade, induces a further laceration of
the tissues, the size of which leaves little possibility for
haemostasis24. That the Pugio was considered the lethal
weapon par excellence, which left no escape for whoever
it struck, can be inferred from the ancient writers: both
when they used the rhetorical expression “leaden pugio”
meaning the antithesis of an efficient action; and also
when religious writers describe it as a means to the divine
and to purification with no way out, as for example in the
biblical account of the killing of the Midianites, where
the pugio is even mythologized - seeing as the account is
written in historical and geographical contexts which are
incompatible with its existence.
Fig.IV/2: Helmet from the end of I century A.D. preserved in the Roman Museum in Worms (Germany). Notice the decorative appliqués
and the band on the front in orichalcum. (drawing by the author).
where she confirms that out of approximately 300 dead
bodies discovered in Herculaneum (Italy), only one was
found in possession of a weapon, a legionary together with
his gladius. The civil use of any weapon, and hence of the
Pugio, was not permitted, and there is no portrayal in any
pictorial or sculptural representation that is not military.
Furthermore, examining the ancient quotations connected
with murders and suicides in the relative chapter, it
appears that most people who committed a deadly action
with a dagger belonged to or were connected with their
own “Cursus Honorum” to the military world. We deduce
from this that the Pugio could be a weapon for military
service, as appears from the stelae, and that its civil use
was the consequence of an acquired military experience
carried on after discharge.
As already pointed out, the ancient writers do not give
us an exhaustive description of what the real function
of this weapon was. Only in three quotations do we find
its use described in a war context. On the other hand,
it is frequently cited in connection with bloody acts in
non-war situations, that is to say: 5 assassinations and
10 suicides. This observation brings us to hypothesize
that killers frequently used this weapon for their murders,
most probably due to its capacity to harm and its ability
to be easily hidden under the folds of a toga (remember
the conspirators against Caesar who hid the weapon
under their togas; and how it was used by Augustus in his
adolescence, who, as is shown in an account by Seneca,
also hid it between the folds of his toga; or carried under
the robe as S. Crispus relates). The hypothesis that the
pugio was a dagger which was widespread even out of
a war context is a known fact, but we must accept with
caution the idea that its use was also civil. The “Lex Iulia
de vi publica et privata” which was issued in 17 B.C. by
Augustus in order to re-discipline the crimen vis, forbade
the use of arms, except for hunting or during journeys.
This law was respected, and the confirmation for this is
verifiable in the observation reported by A. Angela in
“Viaggio di Roma seguendo una moneta” Ed. Mondadori,
24
25
We are doubtful about the hypothesis of some modern
writers that the Pugio could have had a use as a “Boy
Scout knife”, or as a kitchen utensil, due to the weapon’s
intrinsic characteristics. By definition, a knife made for
everyday use is of small size -one only needs to think of
the Swiss multi-use knife – which is totally incompatible
with the type III, whose characteristics are that of a
semispatha. Also the double-sided blade makes the pugio
unmanageable for carving wood, and its wide blade is not
appropriate for cutting food. These considerations lead
us to discard this suggested hypothesis until documented
proof stating the contrary is available.
The observations we have already made are corroborated
by I.P. Stephenson, who writes that “although the Roman
soldiers could have used (the pugio) for non-military
objectives, this must not distract us from its main use”,
that is a weapon of war.25
The use of a dagger in battle suggests hand-to-hand
combat, where the two combatants are involved in fight
at very close distance, as Vergilius Maro Gammaticus26
describes, for whom a “Pugna” is when two fighters
(pugiles) lash out at each other with their pugiones. Many
the process to stop a haemorrhage;
“Roman Infantry Equipment, The later Empire”;
41
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
41
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
use of a dagger, and hence of the pugio, we read in the
description by the Ancient Writers how this type of combat
might have taken place and consequently what its true use
may have been. The description given to us be Tacitus31
is fundamental. “The first fight was fought from far, while
the Britannians calmly and skilfully diverted our launching
weapons with their long swords and avoided them with their
small leather shields. They then covered ours with a rainfall
of darts until Agricola ordered four Batavian cohorts and
two Tungrian ones to begin hand-to-hand combat with their
swords, seeing as they, having had long-term experience
with weapons, were experts at this type of combat. The
enemy, instead, who had small shields and enormous
swords, were not in a position to defend themselves from
such an assault. The swords of the Britannians were, in fact,
without points and did not allow the weapons to meet or to
fight in a restricted space.” The lack of adequate space is,
therefore, a limit for the Celtic warriors to brandish their
own weapons, but not for the legionaries who, as Vegetius32
tells us “the Romans not only won against those who fought
to cut, but they also made fools of them. In fact, strikes
which cut, however powerful they may be, are rarely fatal,
seeing as the vital organs remain protected by the armour
and bones; instead, stabbing with the point of a weapon
which penetrates by two inches is fatal: in effect, in order to
kill it is necessary that any thing which is plunged into the
body penetrates the vital organs. Furthermore, whenever
a strike cuts, the right arm and side remain unprotected;
whereas a strike by the point is inflicted on a protected body
and the enemy is wounded before he realises it .” Striking
with the point of a weapon also implies a need for less space
in comparison with when striking to cut. Therefore, in the
situation in which the fight prevents the use of the gladius,
for example when the warriors found themselves locked in
combat, what better solution could there have been than
using the pugio, being a weapon of limited size? Nonius
Marcellus33 claims that “Pugio est gladius brevis”, implying
with this definition that the shape and probably the use of
the two side arms was very similar. That the Pugio was
a miniature Gladius is stated also by Vegetius34 when he
explains that the legionaries were armed with “gladiis et
semispathiis”, which translated literally would be a gladius
and a dagger half the length of a sword, or more precisely a
sword and a miniature sword.
Basing ourselves on this theory, we also understand better
the symbolic meaning of “power of life and death”35 which
is connected to this dagger. The real subject which the
ancients refer to is most probably the Gladius, because the
Pugio would have been used as if it was its representation
in miniature. With this key to reading the classics, also
Galba’s behaviour, for example, appears clearer when, just
crowned Emperor, he hung the Pugio around his neck36; in
actual fact he was exhibiting the “gladius in miniature”,
thus taking advantage of the true meaning of the weapon.
Fig. IV/3: buckle in silver with a plate to attach to the belt, dated to
the second half of the I century A.D. (Narodni Murzej – BelgradeYU). (Drawing by the author)
modern authors relate the hypothesis that it was a reserve
weapon for the gladius27, and it certainly was an accessory
weapon, just as can be deduced from Tacitus’28 account
when he describes some war action which broke out in
Germania Inferior. against the Chauci, led by Gannascus:
an auxiliary and deserter, originating from the tribe of the
Canninefati. The commander, Gnaeus Domitus Corbulo,
“brought back to the ancient discipline the legions who
were intolerant of occupation and suffering, who only
found pleasure in pillaging. He ordered that no one should
abandon his troop and go into battle without having
received orders; furthermore, the sentinels and all the
military forces had to be composed of armed men both
by day and at night; they narrate that a soldier who was
digging a trench unarmed, and another, who was only
armed with a pugio, were both punished with death.”
Hence the gladius is defined as essential weapon in the
armament, not so the Pugio.
Tacitus29 describes a nocturnal attack on a Roman fortress
by the Germans under the command of Gaius Julius
Civilis, head of the Batavians, who fought against the
Romans during the year of the four Emperors. “The
Germans were transported by rash fury; the Romans, with
their experience of danger, threw iron-covered rods and
heavy boulders not in a random manner. When the noise of
the assailants or of the drawbridge, meant the enemy was
close, they sent it back by banging their shields against
them, and overwhelming them with their ‘pila’, and many
who had climbed up on top of the rampart were pierced by
slashes of pugiones”: From this account it can be inferred
that the Romans used pugiones on the betterments in handto-hand combat, which made the use of long weapons,
such as gladi, useless, given the restricted nature of the
place of combat. Probably the dark of the night favoured
the assault and such close combat. Also the “Military art
of Training”, published in 1622, when referring to the
coltellus - a large dagger in use from the XI to the XIV
century exclusively by the infantry - claims that the dagger
has a big advantage over the sword in close combat, and
as a weapon for killing the wounded30. However, if this
type of combat is the “conditio sine qua non” for the
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Ultimately, the pugio can be considered not so
much a reserve weapon for the gladius but rather its
complementary weapon, finding its ideal use in combat
that was so close-at-arms that it made the main weapon
seem too cumbersome.
“Epitomae” ch. 4;
among those: M.C. Bishop, Adrian Goldsworthy, Raffaele D’Amato;
“Annales”, book XI, ch. 18-3;
“Historiae”, book IV, ch. 29;
Theory also from I.P. Sthepenshon, “Roman Infantry Equipment, The later Empire”;
“Agricola”, XXXVI e XXXVII, I;
“Epitoma Rei Militaris”, book 1, ch. XII;
“De compendiosa doctrina”, book 19;
Vegetius, op. cit., book II, ch. XVII;
About this topic, see chap. “ VIII – classic bibliography”;
Svetonio, “De vitae Caesarum”, ch. 11;
42
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
42
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER IV - FUNCTION AND USE
The confirmation for what we have stated so far comes
from an account by Cassius Dio37, when he describes a
fight between legionary troops belonging to Julius Caesar
and the Germans, describing in detail the technique used
by the Romans to beat physically stronger warriors. The
Roman attack “happened in a rush and with shouting
(preventing the barbarians) from thrusting their javelins,
which was their main strength. They came so close
that the barbarians couldn’t use either their spears or
swords, which were longer than those of the Romans”.
The development of a very close situation between two
armies imposes hand-to-hand combat, which neutralises
the enemy’s method of fighting. In fact, “the Romans, by
forcing their presence on the barbarians were their equals
thanks to their armour and their ability to fight. As this
fighting dragged on for a long time, in the end, when the
day was over, the Romans won. The fact was that they had
a very valid aid in the form of their daggers, which were
shorter than those of the Galls, and they had iron points;
on top of which, being used to exertion, they resisted better
than the barbarians, in whom the force of resistance was
not on a par with the vehemence of the attacks.” The
tight formation of the Roman army gave rise to a wall of
shields, and it was due to this that the soldiers “standing
so upright, were impossible to attack because they were
joined so tightly together, and impossible to move because
of their consistency. In this way they neither made nor
suffered any damage.” Having made the barbarians so
harmless as they could not fight from the moment they
were blocked by the compact nature of the fight, and they
remained “still in the same place … (and) … immobile
like inside towers …(the Roman foot soldiers) … threw
away also their shields and cast themselves, some with a
short run and others from close up, and they so-to-speak
jumped on top of the enemies and struck them all over”. At
this point the fatal attack came from above, from soldiers
who threw themselves on top of the fight and struck the
barbarians on the jugular, “because they used to fight bare
headed … for which reason many fell immediately, because
only one strike was enough to kill them; many died even
before they fell, because the compact nature of the group
meant that even the dead remained standing.”
Besides this confirmation from a literary source we can
find another from an archaeological one. It is well known
how the Romans used wooden weapons for drills, which
were often weighted down with lead to make them heavier
than were the actual weapons38; and some of these have
survived to our day. In particular, two of these are kept
in the Roman Army Museum of Vindolanda (GB): one is
a replica of a gladius and one of a pugio; whereas in the
LWL Romermuseum (Haltern am See, Germany) we find
one similar to a pugio with a curved blade. Regarding the
first pair it is to be pointed out that it is the opinion of the
Director of “The Vindolanda Trust” that both weapons
are toy weapons, whereas the LWL Romermuseum is
of the opinion that theirs is a drill weapon. Personally, I
am inclined to believe that both are drill weapons, both
because of their coarse features, decidedly too unrefined
even for the plainest toy, and above-all because the grip
sizes are suitable for the hand of an adult and not of a child.
Regarding those from Vindolanda, this would correspond
with the fact that there were cohorts peditate in the fortress,
whom we know were equipped with the pugio.
If our supposition is correct, it would mean a clear further
claim that the pugio was a weapon with tactical objectives,
for whose use the soldiers needed, just as for the other
37
38
39
40
41
Fig.IV/4: schematization of the wounding capacity of the pugio. Its ability
to produce a very serious wound is evident. (drawing by the author)
weapons, the right drilling.
Hand-to-hand combat is a phase of a certain type of
combat which is not characteristic of all peoples or of all
the historical periods in which we meet the Roman army.
This statement is reinforced by the observation that the
geographical distribution of the archaeological finds of the
Pugiones is not equal in all The Empire, but limited to very
precise areas39.
Finally, if we examine the statistics of the regions where
the target corps were the pugio struck the body - which can
be deduced from quotations from the classics40 - we have
further confirmation of the fact that the pugio was mostly
used in very close combat and prevalently to strike victims
from above. In fact, wounds on the upper zones (neck and
heart) make up 92.85% of the total.
We have seen that the archaeological finds of the Pugiones
almost totally coincide with the provinces of Britannia,
Hispania, Gaul, Germania Inferior (the most numerous),
Germania Superior, Raetia, Noricum, Pannonia and
Dalmatia, whereas they are almost completely absent in
the provinces of southern Europe, the Middle East and
on the African continent. Michel Kazanski41 explains that
for the ancient writers it was very simple and practical to
use the military tradition of a people as an ethnographic
index rather than using other characteristics. In fact, for
the barbarians war held an essential role, and the high
militarization of funerary contexts is proof of this, added
to the fact that the first confrontation/conflict between
the Romans and a barbarian population was essentially
of a military type. Whereas territories, idioms, civil and
commercial activities of the various groups were so vague
and fragmented that they did not allow a real and useful
distinction, the knowledge of how a people fought made
it possible to understand how to prepare oneself to face
it in a practical manner. This historical and ethnographic
distinction corresponds with archaeological finds. Indeed,
according to the archaeological finds of different types
of weaponries, we can distinguish two main groups of
populations located in two well-defined areas. The area
of central and western Europe, which was inhabited by
geographically stable populations, represented by the
Germans, the Celts (including Geto-Dacians), the Baltic
and Finnish people on the banks of the Baltic Sea, whereas
the area of central/southern and eastern Europe (Scythia
or Sarmatia of the ancient written sources), which were
represented by Indo-Iranian nomads such as the Sarmatians
Storia Romana, book XXXVIII, par. 49;
Marco Scardigli, “la lancia, il gladio, il cavallo”;
see chapter “II- geographical distribution”;
About this topic, see chap. “ VIII – classic bibliography”;
“Roma e i Barbari, la nascita di un nuovo mondo”, capther “Le armi dei barbari dal I al IV secolo d.C.” p. 140 author di Jean-Jacques Aillagon. ;
43
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
43
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
advantageous manner. Vegetius explains that “in every
battle it is not so much the great number and inexpert
courage to secure the victory as the refining of technique
and practice … In fact, how could a few Romans have
won against the horde of Gauls? What on earth made
them dare to 43
move against the Germans, being so short
themselves?”
The II-III century A.D. is a crucial period in history for
our study in order to understand the end of the use of this
weapon since it coincides with the decline of the infantry,
which was more and more deficient both in numbers
and in the quality of military preparation, and the full
development of the cavalry. The reason for this was,
while the conflicts in the high Empire were of a “regional”
nature against individual barbarian tribes (where the only
exception was the battle of Teutoburg in which an ample
coalition of clans developed), after the end of the II century
A.D. the strategic and military set-up of the barbarian
populations changed. As Claus von Carnap-Bornheim
states “the pacific contacts and the armed conflicts with
the armed Empire, as well as the processes such as
the formation of solid regional alliances and between
large tribes, determined the very rapid development in
the military field; this concerns the equipment and the
logistics, but also the tactics and strategy.”44 In fact,
under the pressure of the Eastern Germans (Goths) entire
Germanic populations, Marcomannians and Quadi in
the first place, joined forces and began to crowd on the
Rhine-Danube limes. The strategy of imperial safety,
which reached its highest level of efficiency under
Hadrian with the creation of the fortified limes, defended
by immobile military forces (infantry), was efficient
against the barbaric infiltrations of a low and average
intensity. These barriers, which were continued to form
the Limes, were later completely inadequate against large
scale attacks. The use of “concentrated, mobile troops,
sent in reconnaissance to intercept or deactivate enemy
attacks”45 was useful in confronting these invasions.
The fundamental instrument in this type of defence was
represented by the cavalry, a completely mobile military
corps, which was established – or at least strengthened
– by Emperor Gallienus (218-268 A.D.). The strategic
advantage of the mobility (displacements of approximately
80 kilometres a day) favoured the predominance of a tactic
of launching weapons and the appearance of a cavalry
equipped with striking weapons such as the Ala I Ulpia
Contariorum Miliaria, established by Traianus, and the
Ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum Catafracta created under
Hadrian. These strategies, however, were to the detriment
of tactical advantage which the legionary infantry had over
the barbarians, and, ultimately the reason for the decline in
the use of the Pugio.
Furthermore, as Vegetius46 testifies, the late-Roman
formation was mainly based on defence. In fact, the late
imperial units behaved more like a Greek phalanx than
as a classical Roman legion, deploying themselves with
a wall of shields while waiting for the enemy to strike,
thus giving a further logical explanation for the end of the
use of the Pugio. A lack of men and training prompted an
avoidance of complicated manoeuvres which would have
provoked imbalance or asymmetry in the deployment,
favouring a predominant use of both flung weapons and
spears, the latter were not thrown but thrust towards the
enemy in order to stop their rush, as well as the adoption
of the “fulcum”47, a type of testudo with shields placed
(Roxolani, Aorsians, Siracians etc.) and Alans.
Studying the funerary context of these populations during
the Roman age, we can deduce that there were two
completely different battle settings: that of the GermanicCelts and that of the Indo-Iranian.
The Germanic-Celts wore weapons belonging to the La
Tène culture (the last centuries B.C.). Spear heads in
the shape of flames and leaves have been found, javelin
heads with a double hinge, wooden shields in a round
shape with umbo and a semi-spherical calotte (made
to protect from launching weapons) or in fishbone (for
hand-to-hand combat), asymmetrical axes and finally
short swords. Defensive weapons, excluding the shields,
is rare and reserved for the heads. It consisted in armour
in scales and thin plate, and helmets. For these warriors
the infantrymen’s role was the most important, whereas
the role of the cavalry was not very important, left to
supervisory functions, the pursuing of fugitives, and as a
means to transport the cavalrymen to the place of battle
(where they would descend from their horses to fight as
infantry). It is necessary, however, to remember that where
the Thracians lived on the Danube frontier numerous
tombs of catafractarii have been discovered (cavalrymen
with heavy armour).
The Indo-Iranian populations, at least until the II century
B.C., were exclusively horsemen, they did not use shields
but often armour. Weapons for long-distance combat were
predominant, such as the bow with tri-lobed arrowheads.
The swords were long and pointed (the most ancient had
a pommel in the shape of a ring) and were worn attached
to their belt, in contrast with the Roman cavalrymen, who
generally carried them on a baldric over the shoulder. On
the other hand, daggers were very widely used and worn
secured to the legs. The defensive equipment consisted
of helmets in thin plate, scales armour and ring mail.
The description made by Plutarch of Crasso’s defeat
in the battle of Carrhae in 53 B.C.42 is very helpful in
understanding the Indo-Iranian nomadic people’s combat
techniques. “The enemies deployed the armoured cavalry
in front against the Romans, who were surrounded by
other cavalrymen. The sand on the ground was churned
up and rose into the air creating a dust storm. The Romans
could no longer see nor make sounds. Gathered into a
small space, they were struck and they fell one on top of
the other, slowly dying: racked by unbearable pain they
rolled onto the darts, which broke off into their wounds.
In an effort to pull out the heads, which had penetrated
into the nerves and veins, and bent over like hooks, they
ended up destroying themselves and tearing themselves
to pieces by themselves. In this way many died, whereas
the survivors had exhausted all their strength...” In battle
against the cavalry there is no contact, not even hand-tohand, making the gladius totally useless, and even more
so the pugio.
This analysis gives us an explanation as to why there
are archaeological finds of the pugiones distributed in
territories where Germanic-Celts existed, whose combat
was based on infantrymen and the desire for physical
contact, whereas, where there were populations with
a different war set-up, the archaeological remains of
pugiones are not present. Also in this case, we have
proof of the great adaptability of the Roman army, both
in weaponry and tactics, which was always based on its
flexibility, that allowed it always to prevail in the most
42
43
44
45
46
47
“life of Caesar” 25,5-6;
Vegetius, op. cit., book I, ch. I;
Claus von Carnap-Bornheim: “La guerra nella società germanica”, pag 137, “Roma e i Barbari, la nascita di un nuovo mondo”. Catalog of the
exposition in Palazzo Grassi – Venice - by Jean-Jacques Aillagon.
Edward N. Luttwak, “La grande strategia dell’impero Romano”. Casa Ed. BUR 1997.
Vegetio, op. cit., book II, ch. XVII;
Maurice, “Strategicon”;
44
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
44
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER IV - FUNCTION AND USE
due to the short distance of combat and consequently the
rapidity of the actions”.
This analysis of a treatise from the Renaissance under
certain aspects is a cultural digression from the context of
analysis of the Roman weapon, but it is useful in helping
all those who do not know the action of a dagger just how
dangerous it is, by using references as close as possible to
the Period of Ancient Rome.
obliquely on the front part, fit to handle the charge of the
cavalry. The use of longer swords also implies that their
use was for cutting and that there was a loss of the compact
nature of the formation during battle48.
The Ancient Latin Writers unfortunately have not passed
anything down regarding the technique of use of this
weapon, also if the fencing teacher Francesco Antonio
Marcelli, in his treatise “Fencing Rules” from 1686, lets
us know that Gaius Aurelius Scaurus wrote a treatise
on fencing which unfortunately has been lost. Valerius
Maximus49 relates in an indirect piece of news on this
author: “The consul, Publius Rutilius, in order to train
the soldiers better to manage their weapons went to call
for the instructors from the school of gladiators of Gaius
Aurelius Scaurus. In this way our legions have learnt a
more rational technique for defence and offence. I believe
that is right. Courage is not enough; it must be completed
with more thorough training. Those who fight in the arena,
precisely due to the job they have, know very well how to
fight hand-to-hand”. We can deduce from this that right
from the Roman Age an ars duellarum has existed, which
has been handed down on treatises which have not survived
to our day, and which by tradition could presumably be
found in subsequent combat manuals. The oldest treatise
that has survived to our day is that of Messer Fiore of
the Liberi from 1409, entitled “Flos duellatorum”. The
usefulness of examining these manuals is not in defining
if the Roman combat technique has survived for thousands
of years, passing untouched through the Medieval Age, but
in attempting to understand by means of the most ancient
sources what the use of the dagger might have been and
if this could be compatible with the Roman Age. In this
manual the use of a dagger is related, which “cum cuntos
superem qui possunt bellica mecum/Poli minibus fractis
ornatos porto lacertos” indicates by means of verses, the
ability to defeat adversaries with this weapon. The blows
are distinguished in “overhand” (landed from above to
below) and “underhand” (launched from below to above),
describing moves and counter moves. There are 66 actions
described between someone armed with a dagger and an
unarmed fighter, whereas there are 11 moves between two
duellists both armed with daggers, and there are 8 actions
described between a duellist with a dagger and the other
with a sword.
Modern commentators of the treatise allow themselves to
stress that the overhand strikes are more useful against an
enemy wearing armour due to the force of the blow, which
makes it possible to break the rings on a lorica hamata or to
enter between the plates of a scale lorica. It is a fatal blow
and quick, but easily fended off, preferably used by hitmen to commit an assassination or to eliminate a sentinel.
The anatomical region of the target is the hollow between
the neck and the collar bone, frequently fatal.
The underhand blows, instead, being less powerful,
are preferable against enemies without armour, and are
useful in war, in a fray situation, or against an assault of
betrayal. As they are very quick, they are difficult to see
and therefore to fend off. They can be inflicted at a greater
distance from the enemy in comparison with the overhand
blow.
The authors of this work point out “the danger of the
short, side weapon in comparison with the long one,
since, whereas it is possible to leave a duel with swords
unharmed thanks to superior athletics, it is very difficult
not to be wounded in combat with a dagger, even if you
win, and it is very frequent to have a doubly fatal outcome
48
49
Andrea Freidiani, “L’ultima battaglia dell’impero Romano – l’esercito del V secolo e la disfatta finale contro i vandali”, Ed. Universale Storica
Newton;
“Factorum et dictorum memorabilium”, II, 3, 2;
45
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
45
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Fig. IV/5: geographical distribution of the populations of Germanic/Celtic and Indo-Iranian origin, and localization of the areas in which there is
the greatest concentration of archaeological finds. It is easy to notice the geographical coincidence between the latter and the Germanic Celts.
46
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
46
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER V
CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY
maintain the “cutting edge of the blade” after impact,
which was indispensable for an efficient cutting action,
whereas the softer metal, containing less carbon, gave the
blade its elastic characteristic which was indispensable for
making it less fragile following the impact of a stroke.
As with all cutting weapons, the pugiones are also
composed of two main parts, the blade and the hilt, whose
construction characteristics we will now look at.
In this chapter we examine the pugio from a purely
technological prospective, looking closely at its various
components, construction techniques and materials used.
It is important, however, to keep in mind that we are
studying ancient weapons which are subject to variations
in construction typical of that world and, therefore, we can
always find exemplars which are not perfectly covered
here.
From the examination of archaeological findings we know
that the pugiones varied a lot in size, from a minimum
lenght of about 28 cm to a maximum of ca. 45 cm, with
rare exceptions going beyond this limit. In any case, within
each individual period they seem to be homogenous, so
that most differences are noted in moving from one type
to another, and in particular – as previously seen – in the
change to type III, the final one.
Generally speaking, the blades had an average length of 18
to 30 cm, and a width of 3.5 to 7 cm. The hilt was normally
smaller than that of the gladius, varying from10-11 cm
long in total, and made in a shape which was definitely
less appropriate for demanding and prolonged use than
that of the gladius.
Up until the end of the Imperial Age the average weight did
not exceed 140-160 grams - even if there is no lack of even
lighter exemplars, as for example some blades preserved
in the museum of Vindonissa (Brugg, Switzerland) with a
weight of approximately 65-66 grams1. We find decidedly
heavier weights in the great exemplars of the final period,
which could arrive at a weight of 350-400 grams, which
should be considered as maximum limit for our weapon.
Finally, metallographic analysis has emphasized the
Roman smiths’ thorough knowledge of metals; they were
able to work and combine both the hardest metals (with
characteristics similar to steel) as well as the softest ones.
In fact, use of the former meant being able to obtain and
Blade: the metallographic examinations carried out recently
on Roman weapons2 give us important information on the
technical ability of the Roman blacksmiths. It is important
to remember that the iron they used often had qualities
similar to those of steel as charcoal was used in the fusion
as a reductant, so forming mild steel. Pliny tells us with
surprise of the result of the fusion of iron-bearing minerals
with coal as they acquire the consistency of a liquid almost
similar to water (“mirumque quum excoquatur vena,
acquae modo liquari ferrum” 3). In general, right from the
earliest times their technology enabled them to produce
carbon steel, to solder it, submit it to annealing and
make damascened blades4. This technique is particularly
advanced and consists in the fusing layers of pure iron
with others of mild steel, which is harder, by means of
hammering the forged packet at around 1250°C. The bar
obtained in this manner is then folded over and hammered
to the original thickness again. By repeating this process
even just a few times, a bar having many alternating layers
is formed. This type of processing not only increases the
carbon content of the wrought iron but it also makes it react
well to the tempering; and the alternate metal layering also
improves the mechanical characteristics as well as giving a
pleasant decorative effect to the surface of the object.
With the final polishing the various layers become
noticeable, thus obtaining the so-called damascening
effect.5 Despite the fact that it was already known to the
Etruscans from the IV century B.C.6, it is evident that
this process was the privilege only of the most qualified
workers who had advanced metallurgic knowledge; but
already from the times of the Republic we find many
Fig.V/1: Different types of steel in Roman blades
from various periods. At the bottom, cross
section of a pugio blade made with damascening
technique. Note the alternating various layers
with different carbon levels, where the low
carbon layers make the metal soft but flexible
and, on the opposite, the high carbon ones make
the metal hard, sharp but more brittle. (drawing
by the author based on information from
“Roman Army Equipment” by M.C. Bishop
& J.C.N. Coulston and from “Ein romischer
Prunkdolch aus Haltern” by H. Westphal.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Unz C., E. Deschler-Erb,” Katalog der militaria aus Vindonissa”;
Among them we mention those made with advanced techniques by dr. D. Horstamann;
Plinio, “Nauralis Historia”, XXXIV, 146
M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston, “Roman Army Equipment”, Oxbow books;
M. Sachse, “Damaszenerstahl”, 1989;
Claudio Giardino, “I metalli nel mondo antico”, Ed. Laterza;
47
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
47
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Fig. V/3: illustration of the jointing of two metallic pieces by the
technique of boiling: 1) heating of the pieces up to a doughy
condition 2) followed by fusion using high pressure and/or beating
(drawing by the author).
Fig. V/4: shows three types of cross-section. “A” is simply in
a lenticular shape; “B” is the same size as the first but with a
reinforcing midrib on both sides; and the last one “C” has a lenticular
shape but with greater depth, and the same total as “B”. The first two
are frequent in pugiones, the third is only theoretical to support our
calculations. Values in m.m. (drawings by the author).
composition (three of iron and two of mild steel)”. There
are at least two other blades known from the same area
with similar characteristics8 In the second half of the I
century this fascinating but complex technique seems
to have been partially set aside in favour of a simpler
methodology, as it has been possible to deduce from an
analysis of the metals of gladi and spathae from various
periods, to then return in fashion towards the second half
of the II century onwards (fig. V/7). In fact, the blades of
the pugiones from the final period, especially those from
the III century, are frequently made not from a single bar
of iron but by means of damascening9.
The blades, whether made from an even bar of iron or
from a packet of different layers, were created by means of
forging10 the entire piece or by the sophisticated technique
of “boiling”.
Fig. V/2 X-ray of a blade which was made by soldering its two edges
to the central core by the technique of boiling. We can clearly see the
soldering lines, which are inevitably uneven. Where the colour tends
towards white are the points of better quality, and vice versa, in the
darker areas the resistance of the soldering is not so high. The white
colour of the central core demonstrates its resistance and width. (xray by the author).
Boiling, used to solder two pieces of iron inextricably
together, has been known since the XIV century B.C. and
consists in heating the two elements to a pasty state and
then uniting them by means of great pressure or beating11.
Weapons made in this manner have quite a solid central
element of generous size, onto which the two lateral edges
are soldered. The resistance of the material was guaranteed
by tempering, known to the Romans since the earliest
times12.
weapons made by this technique. For this purpose we cite
a gladius dating to the end of the III-beginning II century
B.C., produced with a very similar technique7. As far as the
pugiones are concerned, instead, we find many exemplars
made in this manner from the time of Augustus. Among
these, one of the most representative comes from Haltern,
whose edges are each made of five layers of differing
7
8
9
10
11
12
D. Kmetič, J. Horvat, F. Vodopivec, “Metallographic examinations of the roman Republican weapons from the hoard from Grad near Šmihel”,
2004;
WmfA Münster, n. inventario 56/267 e 68NS;
M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston, op. cit.;
also called “forging”, exploits the physical characteristics of the metals which, if exposed to heat, tend to soften, allowing the shape to be formed with
considerably less effort. It was carried out in the forge, a furnace equipped with a forced ventilation system made up of a large bellows inside which
the iron was heated to 800 and 900 °C. At this temperature it assumes a red, orange-red colour until it becomes white. Following this, by means of
skilful and vigorous strikes of a hammer on the anvil, the smith shaped the piece by making it thinner, folding it, modelling it in all ways. The logic
of forging is that the metal, when it is pressed between the head of the hammer and the anvil, changes its shape, making it become thinner and expand
laterally in volume. Each time the metal bar became cold, the process had to be repeated. The experience of the smith allowed him to know exactly
when the colour of the metal meant it was at the right temperature to be hammered (for this reason many of them worked in the dark or in dimly-lit
environments) estimating how the hammer bounced back from the sound it made and from the extent to which the metal bent under each strike.
The use of mallets, a large type of mechanical hammer, which were made to move by the force of water in mills from the earliest times, was typical of
the richer smiths and of structures which were organised to produce at an industrial level. The mallet permitted the initial piece of metal to be shaped
roughly and more rapidly and so finishing the weapon quicker.
Claudio Giardino, “I metalli del mondo antico”, ed. Laterza;
Marziale, “Epigrammi”, XIV-32;
48
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
48
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER V - CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY
Fig. V/6: blade made with a central groove for the removal of
material. This shape does not contribute to the mechanical resistance
of the blade. (drawing by the author).
do the production costs, in addition the manageability of
the weapon remains unaltered. The case of cross section
“C”, with a simple, lenticular cross section but an increase
in depth, was only analysed in order to understand why
the Romans (and the ancients in general) had to create an
element like the midrib, which is not difficult to make but
certainly not quick, when it would have been simpler for
them to increase the depth of the blade.
Fig. V/5: graph showing as, despite slight increase of the mass (MA),
the moment of inertia (Mi) of the blade – therefore its resistance to
bending – has a significant increase (for the cross sections “A” and
“B” see fig. V/4). For graphical reasons the value of the mass is in a
scale of 1/10. (drawing by the author).
The blade is always double-edged, straight, symmetrical
in comparison with the longitudinal axis, and never with
parallel edges, consisting of the blade itself and the tang,
the latter to create the hilt.
In this case it emerges that the inertia Mi increases greatly
until reaching even 46.6 mm4, but the mass undergoes an
excessive increase, arriving at a value of 70 mm2, double
that of section “B”14. The practical consequence of this is
that a weapon is too heavy and, therefore, too expensive
and heavy both for use, and logistic reasons including
transport, movement of cargo and storage.
We notice that solution “B” is ultimately extremely
intelligent from a technological point of view, capable of
optimizing the mechanical characteristics of the weapon
practically without contraindications. This advantage is of
fundamental importance because a blade is subjected to
considerable bending forces both when it penetrates and
is extracted from a body, due to the inevitably irregular
path it follows, with probable consequent bending if it
is not strong enough. This is particularly true when the
blade is rather fine, such as that of the pugio, which could
easily become irremediably damaged. This also explains
why the midrib is such a common technological element
in the pugiones while it is so absent in the gladi; the
latter, in fact, have a decidedly wider and thicker blade,
strong enough in itself not to have similar problems.
The pugiones, instead, had very narrow and fine blades,
often too delicate to do without this precious aid.
It is almost always endowed with a midrib (lack of this
would be exceptional), not a very apparent element but
which is very important from a technological point of
view. Its main purpose was to improve the mechanical
performance of the blades themselves. In order to verify
whether and how far this may be true, some blades have
been subjected to a mid section for structural testing13, and
the results are surprising.
At first it (blade A) was considered a blade with a simple
cross-section -lenticular and with measurements typical
for the pugio, without any type of stiffening - and the
moment of inertia was calculated (Mi), which in our case
determines – from a practical point of view – the capacity
to resist force. The result was that Mi = 5.83 mm4 against
a mass Ma (in this case coinciding with the area) of 35
mm².
Following this we proceeded to test a blade with a cross
section that was reinforced by the midrib (section “B”),
for which we obtain the result Mi=9.32 mm4 and Ma=37
mm².
A version of this type of rib is that of type “D” (fi.g V/5)
which from a technological point of view is decidedly
more efficient. Typical of the later period, it has been
made without an increase in depth of the cross section,
but by removing material from the sides. In this case, the
moment of inertia not only does not increase, but, instead,
it undergoes a slight reduction.
It is easy to deduce that the midrib is capable of increasing
the resistance of the weapon by a more-than-significant
percentage: about 60% in comparison with the simple cross
section (fig. V/5); a decisive contribution at the expense of
a negligible increase in mass, which equals only about
5% approx, and, therefore, does not affect the weight
of the weapon. This means that also the consumption of
ferrous material does not increase and, therefore, neither
13
14
technical consulting by dr. F. Colicigno;
Let us calculate the moment of inertia of the three figures A,B, and C. They can be considered with enough precision as a group of triangles, despite
the actual sections of the original blades obviously being of a less regular shape, but this allows us to simplify the calculations by far, making them
accessible even to lesser experts.
Given the moments of inertia of a triangle according to its base is Mib= bh³/12
And related to its centre of mass Mic= bh³/36, we have
- section A: Mib= [(35 x 1³)/12] +[(35 x 1³)/12] = 5,83 mm4
- section B: Mib= Mib1 + Mib2 where Mib1= moment of inertia of the lenticular part of the section and Mib2= the moment of inertia of the ribs on
each side of the blade, and therefore
Mib1= [(35 x 1³)/12] +[(35 x 1³)/12] = 5,83 mm4
Mib2 = 2x [(2 x1³)/36 + ((2x1)/2 x 1,3²)] = 3,49 mm4
from which Mib=5.83 + 3.49=9.32 mm4
- section C: [(35 x 2³)/12] +[(35 x 2³)/12] = 46,66 mm4
Let’s now calculate the mass Ma for the three sections, which in this case is directly proportional to the area:
- section A: Ma= 2 x [(35x1)/2] = 35 mm²
- section B : 2 x [(35x1)/2] + 2x [(2x1)/2] = 35 + 2 = 37 mm²
- section C : 2 x [(35x2)/2] = 70 mm²
49
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
49
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Fig. V/8: blade of a pugio slightly grooved in the middle
(photo by the author, courtesy Vindonissa museum, Brugg – Swiss)
Fig. V/7: X-rays of two pugio blades made with different types of
midribs. The one on the left has a “D” type cross section, whereas
the one on the right is a “B” type. The dark parts indicate where the
resistance of the metal is at its lowest, whereas the light parts where
it is at its maximum. (X-ray by the author).
The practical confirmation for the above-mentioned
calculations is found in X-rays of two pugiones. The
darker parts are where the blade resistance is less (in many
places as a consequence of material loss by oxidation),
whereas the lighter parts show the opposite, or rather
where the resistance is greater. The more the colour tends
towards white, the greater the resistance. The exemplar on
the left, dating to approximately mid II century, has a “D”
type midrib, and it can be noticed how its colour appears to
be of the same gradation of white as the surrounding areas,
which means it does not have any increase in resistance.
Instead, two dark lines of weakness appear where the
grooves have been made. In the blade on the right, instead,
made with a midrib of the “B” type, a white line of
maximum resistance is quite evident, which corresponds
with the midrib, and is much lighter than the surrounding
area. The increase in resistance which this blade receives
from it is more than evident.
These grooves could be of two types: in the first they
appear as little more than longitudinal lineations, variable
in number and generally rather rare. With the sole exception
of the Vindonissa area, in which they are curiously present
in all findings (14 exemplars out of 1415). We cannot help
but notice the analogy with similar elements present on a
Celtiberian exemplar form the III century B.C. originating
from the necropolis of Eras del Bosque (Palencia, Spain)16
and a Roman one from Oberaden (Germany) from the
end of the I century B.C.17 The latter also has a “B” type
midrib.
The second type, instead, is more specifically the abovedescribed “D” type (fig. V/6), in which there are only two
rather prominent grooves.
Their function is, however, dubious. It is a fact that,
whereas the “B” type midribs are peculiar to pugiones, the
grooves – both as simple lineations and as larger markings
Fig. V/9: the two types of tang. (drawing by the author).
– have always been widely present among the Roman
weapons. We often find them in “pompei” type gladi,
from the second half of the I century, and also in spathae,
especially from the II-III century18 (among which we cite,
for example, two exemplars from Augusts, from the III
century, and three from the collection in the archaeological
museum of Zagreb, dating to the end of the II century19).
The structural function does not appear very convincing
as they are concave and not convex and, therefore, as
we have already seen, did not contribute in any way to
increasing the resistance of the blade.
Not having any confirmation, we can only logically
deduce that they simply had a decorative function; which
is hardly surprising as it is already present for the same
reason on some Celtiberian daggers20. The possibility that
they could have been used to lighten the blade is hardly to
be taken seriously, as we have already seen that a pugio
had an average weight of 150 grams, and was, therefore,
already light, and hence there would not be much sense in
using this to lighten the weight by a few grams.
In order to give a complete overview, we must mention
a frequently accepted theory, and with which we cannot
agree. These grooves could have a function of acting as
a channel for the “blood flow” in order to maximise the
haemorrhaging of the wound, which derives from easternEuropean weapons21.
C. und. E. Deschler-Erb, op. cit.;
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, “Las dagas del ejército altoimperial en Hispania”, Gladius XXVIII, 2008;
M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston, op. cit.;
18
Michel Feugere, “Weapons of Romans”, ed. Tempus;
19
C. Unz. E. Deschler-Erb,” Katalog der militaria aus Vindonissa”;
20
Fernando Quesada Sanz, “ Armas de la antigua Iberia, de Tartetos a Numancia”, la Esfera de los Libro;
21
Edit B. Thomas, “Helme, schiude, dolche”, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest;
15
16
17
50
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
50
27/05/2012, 16.23
CHAPTER V - CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY
Fig. V/10: on the left is an example of a pugio hilt including the
most common features. It is a Republican exemplar on which we
can see the guard with its overhanging edges; the grip cross section
is vaguely diamond shaped with a clearly defined knob in the centre
together with a rivet; and finally the upper pommel, also circular
and with a central rivet. On the right, a cross section of the grip
made by quite a common method and, therefore, to be considered a
stereotype, in which we find:
1) xternal metallic lamina;
2) lateral, metallic finishing ribbon, with both a decorative and
sealing function for the grip at the point in which the laminas meet
at point;
3) material for filling the inside, which could have been wood or
bone;
4) blade tang;
(photo and drawing by the author).
The meeting point between the blade and the hilt is the
tang. Always forged in a single piece together with the
blade, it is made in two different types: one which is
simpler and more solid, with a cross-section tending
towards a rectangular shape, which reminds us of a smaller
version of the gladius, and which we will call the “rod”
type. Then other is more complex and forged in a flat
shape, which we will call the “flat” type. The latter type
did not have a regular cross-section, but rather followed
the shape of the profile of the grip. In the central part there
was a circular enlargement (fig. V/9), basically of the same
size as the one on the grip. This latter type also had holes
which rivets passed through to attach the hilt.
The technical motivation which encouraged the tang to
be forged in this, apparently more complicated, way, it
not completely clear, but was most probably aimed at
facilitating the attachment of the hilt and the sealing of the
spaces inside. The sealing was often done in hard wood,
but there are quite a few exemplars which show traces of
it in bone.
Fig. V/11: stylized blow-up drawing of the construction components
of a hilt made by “composite” technology. (drawing by the author)
and blade. It generally passed over the edge of the upper
profile of the blade by only a few millimetres, and in some
case was practically a thin strip, even though there are not
a few unusual exemplars (see exemplar no.30 Chap. IX),
showing the opposite. Considering the overall small size of
the weapon and its light weight in contrast with the gladi
it was not necessary to create this construction element in
order to facilitate the perfect positioning of the weapon
in the hand, nor was it necessary to assign it the function
of balancing the weight, which, due to the way it was
conceived for the pugiones, it is not able to do. In contrast
with all the other parts of the hilt, it had an altogether quite
simple geometrical shape, something like a metal element
in a parallelepiped shape, which varied only in the first
two periods in the upper part, which was slightly inclined
(Fig. I/7 chap. I).
The hilt: varied in size, about 10 cm long and had a depth
of about 1.5-1.8 c.m. It was composed of three main
elements: the hand guard (or guard), the grip and the
superior pommel. In some cases these three elements were
not separate but formed part of a single piece.
The hand guard was never accentuated and its overall
size was always moderate. Its main function was to
allow a solid point of attachment between the hilt and the
blade, besides holding back the hand of whoever held the
weapon. As seen in chapter I, often – but not always – two
openings were made through it, which were also present
on the blade below, through which rivets were affixed in
order to obtain a solid attachment of the two elements: hilt
The upper end pommel could be in a circular,
semicircular or bi-lobed shape, depending, as we know,
on the historical period. In the gladi it was an extremely
important component because it was meant to facilitate the
brandishing of the weapon by leaning against the wrist and
thus creating a greater lever. However, with the pugiones
this could not happen because its size is no where near
51
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
51
27/05/2012, 16.23
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Fig. V/12: detail of hilt in composite technology. As well as showing
quite clearly the various technological components, a metallic
element on the pommel with the function of increasing its durability
is indicated (point “1”), working together with the central rivet
placed opposite. (photo by the author)
Fig. V/13: this hilt is shown in its natural state (top image) and under
X-ray (lower image). In the natural one we can clearly see on the
right the surviving part of the metal ribbon used to finish off the
sides, which is one of the very few we have trace of. However, the rest
of the technological elements are not so clear. They can, however be
seen on the weapon under X-ray, in which we can easily identify:
1) passing rivet fixing hilt to blade. The upper part protrudes on the
outside and acts as a decorative element;
2) external metallic plates;
3) internal rivets. Just like the rivet at point 1, they had the function
of fixing the blade to the hilt, but in this case they are completely
on the inside and not externally visible;
4) blade tang;
5) fragment of metal finishing edge on the side.
(photo and X-ray by the author)
adequate for this, so its practical function is limited to that
of preventing the weapon from accidentally slipping out
of the hand. There were almost always one or two rivets
placed in it, which were quite often decorated on their
visible side so as to embellish the weapon as a whole.
Fig. V/14: stylized drawing in blow-up of the construction
components of a hilt made by “tight insertion” technology. (drawing
by the author)
The grip22, whose cross section was midway between a
circular and an irregular diamond shape, was not generally
deeper than the closing pommel and the hand guard.
Its most important characteristic, which we find in all
known pugiones, is that it always has a central bulge in a
more-or-less round and generally not too large shape. Its
practical function is not essential and is probably only that
of improving the grasp. It may be hypothesised that it was
rather a decorative element, related to tradition, rather than
practical. We can now look at the construction technology
of the hilt while duly remembering the above-cited warning
that the lack of standardisation of ancient weapons very
often makes it impossible to group them in rigid patterns,
as it is always possible to find exemplars which are not
possible to be placed exactly in the typologies that we are
about to describe.
We can divide them into two main groups which,, we
22
will call “composite technology” and “tight insertion
technology”:
Composite Technology:
this can certainly be considered the most distinctive
technique for the construction of the pugiones, and again
taken directly from the Celtiberian daggers. Together
with the morphological characteristics of the various
components used, it contributes decisively to making
these weapons utterly impossible to mistake for another,
and unique in their genre.
It was certainly an advanced construction method and
not easy to carry out; and it was not appropriate for mass
production; it required the rather laborious work of a skilful
artisan, where nothing could be overlooked. Precisely for
meaning the portion of the hilt between guard and pommel, hence that held by the hand.
52
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
52
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER V - CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY
Fig. V/16: detail of a pommel in which we can clearly see the
three rivets placed at the top. We guess that, other than being for
decoration, they are necessary to fix the lateral finishing metal onto
the grip. This exemplar was made by “composite” technology.
Some other occasional elements confirm this hypothesis;
on some hilts, on a level with the upper pommel, whose
external plates could easily undergo small bends due to
its circular shape and the presence of a single central rivet
(fig. V/12, point 1), some metallic elements have been
noticed on the inside, whose function was to prevent this
from happening; they were obviously created because the
material on the inside was not considered to have any
capacity for resistance.
To conclude, the external plates were certainly the most
important part of the hilt. In contact with the hand and
almost always made with great attention to detail, at times
embellished in various ways, they were what gave it its
ultimate appearance.
Fig. V/15: examples of tangs of the “rod” type. They appear to be
of very simple geometry, completely free of central enlargements or
holes for the passage of rivets – absent also on the blade – and of
beating on the top. (Drawing by the author).
this reason it bestowed a charm on the weapons which
other construction methods could not achieve.
There are six main technological components which
contribute to this technique:
- two internal plates of organic material,
- two metallic laminas, or external plates, covering the
internal ones,
- a metallic ribbon for finishing the edges (when
present),
- a series of metallic rivets.
From an examination of archaeological findings we
know that the internal plates are almost always lost,
which leads us to suppose with a good degree of certainty
that they were often made of wood, which would be
compatible with their function and their position. This
material is economical and easy to work, easily adjustable
to the blade tang and, therefore, able to ensure an excellent
adherence to it. The contraindications are that it is not of
any value aesthetically and suffers wear and tear from long
contact with hands, however, being internal, in this case
there is no problem. Some exemplars have, nevertheless,
been found which show this component in bone, even if
limited to Period II.
They were covered by external plates, still in iron,
which were no more than very thin laminas, more or less
decorated.
However, one should not make the mistake of considering
these only a coating without any structural function; these
actually made up the resilient part of the hilt, as they were
sufficiently solid and well anchored onto the blade tang.
On the other hand, it is possibly more correct to consider
the internal plates as a secondary element as they had the
sole function of filling the spaces left empty by the outer
ones. The examination of some weapons which have lost
both internal plates but have the external ones still in good
condition and well attached to the tang, shows the hilt
completely solid and perfectly suitable for a hypothetical
use, without being at all affected by the lack of the internal
components.
23
In order to summarise a description of the production
process we can say that at first the two internal plates
were made in the desired shape, and they were positioned
in contact with the tang on both sides, and then they were
attached with one or two metallic rivets. After this they
were covered with the two external elements, which were
placed on the two faces of the hilt, and at times the sides
were finished off with a fine lamina of precious material
such as silver or orichalcum. In the exemplars in which this
lamina is absent, we see that the internal plates are often
in bone, a precious material and of pleasant appearance,
which did not require any finishing. Some experts
hypothesise that their external part, which is visible on the
sides, was coloured with copper oxides23.
Everything was fixed together by means of a variable
number of metal rivets, a maximum of 6, in various sizes,
some concerning all of the described elements, others
concerning only the internal ones. Finally, the outside was
finished off with decorative elements of varying degrees of
value, insets and engravings.
In order to aid full understanding of the description
above we included (fig. V/11) a diagram blow-up of
this technology, from which the position of the various
elements and the relationship between them is clear.
The fine lamina covering for the lateral edge (element no.4
in fig. V/11) has rarely survived, most likely due to the
ease with which it could become separated from the rest.
Figures V/12 and V/13 show some exemplars built with the
technique, where the double-laminated structure is quite
visible. We can see in no. V/11 all the main technological
elements, except for the internal plates which have
Herbert Westphal, “Ein römischer Prunkdolch aus Haltern”;
53
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
53
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Fig. V/17: detail of the pugio on the stele of Firmus (Rheinisches
Landesmuseum, Bonn, Germany)
been lost, including, however, a metallic element for
reinforcement of the pommel, which we mentioned earlier.
The hilt in fig. V/13 is also very interesting, and after a
skilful cleaning of all the impurities, revealed a discrete
portion of lamina finishing on the edge. This is one of the
very rare exemplars in which this element can be seen.
Fig. V/18: pugio from the museum of Saalburg (Ge) (on the right)
in comparison with a gladius from the end of the Republic. Both
have a hilt with an identical bronze plate, which leads to suppose
that they underwent a very similar construction technique. (photo
by the author).
b) Hilt with “tight insertion” technology
As previously seen, towards mid I century A.D. we
experience a new technology for the assembly of the
hilt, which is easier to complete in comparison with the
previous one and which, due to its characteristics, we
will call “tight insertion”. This period coincides with
the appearance of the gladius known as “pompei”24 and
this may not be by chance. In comparison with previous
models (known as “hispaniensis”), the manufacturing
of this one was decidedly simpler, with parallel cutting
edges, a short and triangular point, and it was much
more standardised25. Also the metallurgy used was of a
lower level, and the blades are often forged without the
stratification of different types of steel26. This leads one
to believe that there was the necessity to satisfy a request
for more weapons than previously and, therefore, to adopt
a simpler technology, even if the quality was lower. The
method must have been successful because both the
pugiones and the gladi match its logic. The former were
built with simple “tight insertion” technology, whereas the
“pompei” gladi completely replaced the previous27, more
elaborate ones.
The technological components used are generally the same
as the ones we have already seen with the difference that
the hilt is not held onto the blade by screws like in the
previous ones, but rather by simply inserting the blade
tang into it without using any rivets; and this is very
similar to the technique used to build gladi.
In this case the blade has a tang in a very regular shape, like
Fig. V/18: specimen preserving the pommel of closure. It represents one of the few clues of “tight insertion-subtype “A” technology in its
secondary version (drawing by the author, private collection);
R. D’Amato e G. Sumner, “arms and Armour of the imperial roman soldier”, Ed. Frontline Book; M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston, op. cit.;
Michel Feugere, op. cit.;
M.C. Bishop & J.C.N. Coulston, op. cit.;
27
Michel Feugere, op. cit.;
24
25
26
54
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
54
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER V - CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY
Fig. V/20: hilt with tight insertion subtype “B” technology in ivory,
preserved in the Museum of London. From the left: view of main
side, lateral side, back side. At the bottom: view of the bottom.
(drawing by the author from information taken from “Zu einer
elfenbeinernen Dolchgriffplatte aus Nida Hdderneheim am Main”
by Jurgen Obmann)
plates were applied, which were substantially similar to
those seen previously, working them with a hammer to
make them adhere perfectly to the part beneath. Finally,
there was no lack of decorative work applied to the
weapon.
In the exemplars of type II one sometimes notices a rather
curious component from a technological point of view: some
rivets placed on the upper edge of the pommel, in a number
of never more than three. They do not belong exclusively to
the type of technology we are examining at the moment, but
are common also to the “composite” one. In any case, their
function is not well defined, also if they certainly did not
have a role of great importance from a technological point
of view. In some cases they do no more than keep the top
part of the lateral finishing material of the pommel in place,
but often they are only to be considered decorative28.
Fig. V/19: Virtual hilt reconstruction tests with “tight insertion
subtype A” technology. In position 1 an original hilt (museum
of Haltern) is superimposed on a pugio blade, which appears
absolutely incompatible; in position 2, instead, a classic gladius hilt
is superimposed, which appears to fit perfectly, but is only a little
too large as it originally belonged to a much bigger weapon. Once
it has been slightly re-proportioned (position 3) we can now see the
probable and unexpected image of many pugio exemplars
a simple bolt with a section tending towards a rectangular
shape (element of the “rod” type in fig. V/9) which lends
itself better to this purpose than a wide, flat one. It is still
without the central bulge, which would obviously have
prevented its insertion; nor are the holes for the passage of
rivets present, except in very rare exceptions.
The manufacturing process which was used to create
the pugiones with this technique is less certain than the
“composite” one, because a large quantity of blades
with compatible blades have been found, but very few
exemplars have been found together with their hilts,
not even partial ones, thus depriving the expert from
deepening his knowledge of this technique. Similarly,
this is attributed to the ease with which the components
separated from each other, and becoming irreparably lost,
due to the lack of rivets to make it secure.
For this reason the following description, even if
sufficiently reliable as it is based on common techniques
also used for other weapons form various cultures and
ages, is more approximate than the previous one.
Once the blade with its “rod” tang and hilt in the desired
shape in hard wood had been separately made, the metal
was brought to red heat and then driven with force into the
special cavity, the size of which was slightly inferior to
that of the tang. This forceful insertion, together with the
elevated temperature of the metal, created a sufficiently
secure bond between the two elements, at least for the
purpose they were assigned for. Then the external, metal
28
As said before, it is easily understood that this technique
is decidedly simpler than the first and suitable for mass
production, without this necessarily being at the expense
of quality. Exemplars of exquisite craftsmanship are, in
fact, not at all rare; on the contrary they are actually more
numerous than in the first periods.
It is now necessary to examine two techniques which,
thanks to their characteristics, can be considered variants
of the “tight insertion” type, and so we will call them “tight
insertion of subtype A” and tight insertion of subtype B”.
Tight Insertion subtype “A” technology:
The first type we are going to examine is very interesting
and in some ways surprising as it is from this particular
type of technology that weapons are derived which are of
very different appearance to the more conventional ones
looked at up until now. Let us therefore try to examine
them carefully.
Carmelo Fernandez Ibanez, op. cit.;
55
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
55
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
The first most important indication of its existence is on
the stele of “Firmus”.
The exceptional definition of detail allows us to see that the
hilt of the pugio of this soldier is not like any we have seen
until now, but totally similar to that of a gladius. Hence,
the typical guard tending towards a semicircular shape is
evident, as is the superior pommel with the small – but
extremely typical – pommel of closure above, not similar
in any way to the more standard ones seen till now.
the pommel was applied by glue if it was made of wood.
If the pommel was made of metal, as is frequent in gladi,
instead of proceeding to beat the tang, the pommel was
heated until red and then thrust inside the top of the tang.
Once it had cooled and hence shrunk in size, it created a
solid fusion.
To conclude, we have considered it useful to perform a
“virtual test”, which is possibly not very scientific but
certainly more illuminating. It has the double objective of
testing what has been stated above and helping the reader
to imagine what such a weapon would look like.
Therefore, we took a blade which had a beaten tang
at the top and we attempted to add two real hilts in a
virtual manner: one is from a pugio kept in the LWL
Romermuseum (Haltern) and the other of a gladius from
a private collection, obviously scrupulously respecting the
original size (fig. V/19).
The result, even if only speculative, speaks for itself.
Whereas the hilt from the pugio is completely
incompatible with the tang (fig. V/19, pos. 1), that of
the gladius fits perfectly (fig. V/19, pos. 2) (apart from a
small fold towards the left due to the tang being slightly
damaged). It is, therefore, evident that once the sizes have
been perfected in order to adapt them better to a pugio
blade, being shorter and narrower than that of a gladius, it
appears to be completely compatible (fig/19, pos. 3).
In any case, this one piece of data alone may not be
sufficient to classify it as a distinct subtype if there were
not numerous other archaeological findings to confirm
this.
Some come from the legionary camp of Vindonissa. As
we know, on this site of great scientific value exceptional
circumstances came to be which allowed findings in
organic materials to survive in excellent condition, and
among these is a wooden grip of similar craftsmanship to
a gladius, but substantially smaller. Its size, not so much
in length but rather in width, and above all the diameter
of the internal opening which held the tang, makes it
incompatible with a gladius but at the same time perfect
for a smaller and lighter pugio.
Furthermore, from the same place we have an exemplar
(chap. IX – database, no. 30) which has both its guard
and grip still intact, both of which are similar to those of a
gladius. The pommel is unfortunately missing.
What is more, also in the museum of Saalburg (GE) an
exemplar is kept (fig. V/18; chap. IX – data base, no. 93)
on which we can see that the part of the guard has been
well preserved, made with a metal plate. What makes it
unique is that it is perfectly identical to a type frequently
used for some gladi. It would not seem to be too audacious
to suppose that the whole hilt and its relative construction
technology were very similar.
In addition to these exemplars, which are very indicative in
themselves if nonetheless limited, we can easily extend our
consideration to comprehend many other well-known ones.
These are completely deprived of all parts of the hilt and
could pass unobserved, if it were not for the fact that with
closer observation we can see that they have a beaten tang
at the top. This detail derives precisely from the constructive
method described above and is, furthermore in antithesis with
both the “composite” technology – which we have seen is
based on a flat tang – and the “tight insertion” technology
in its main version where the upper beating would have
completely prevented insertion of the hilt. As it is impossible
to ignore the great number of these tangs, we must deduce that
this technology was not as rare as one might think, but simply
less evident to the eyes of the expert. A simple explanation
for this could be that, in comparison with hilts made using the
main forms of technology, these hilts very often had to be in
organic material and therefore hardly ever survived.
Therefore, it has finally been possible to demonstrate
what a weapon assembled with this type of technology
may often have looked like, which was, as already stated,
substantially different from common imagination.
Tight Insertion subtype “B” technology:
We deduce its existence and its characteristics only from
two very similar hilts in ivory: one is preserved in the
Museum of London29, and the other comes from NidaHeddernheim (Germany)30. The similarity is, however,
so evident to make one think of a common fabrication
technique, which is simpler in comparison with the main
variant. Both seem to be made from a sole piece of ivory,
duly shaped according to the classical shape of hilts of
pugiones from Period II, and inside which we can see the
special cavity for the insertion of the tang of the blade.
The special characteristic is that one of the two surfaces
is completely finished off, whereas the other - flat and
uncarved and most likely the back - has a place for what
must have been a metallic lamina31. Neither of the two
have preserved their guard, which could have been made
in the same material, obviously metal, bone or wood.
It is easy to understand that it was simply necessary to
insert this hilt, made almost from a single piece, onto the
blade tang in order to finish off the weapon.
There are no other findings of this subtype of hilt, but this
does not mean that they were very rare, as it is simply
possible that these are the only surviving ones because
they are made of non-biodegradable material, whereas the
all the others in bone or wood have become irreparably
lost.
From a technological point of view, the experience of
experimental archaeology teaches us that assembly was
rather simple in the end and consisted in introducing three
main elements in a precise order onto the tang – clearly
onto the “pointed” type -: first the guard, then the grip and
finally the superior pommel.
In order to guarantee the firm fixture of all these elements,
once the first two had been inserted the top of the tang was
beaten until an enlargement similar to the head of a nail
was made which prevented them from coming out. Lastly,
29
30
31
Archives: PDC/ER 546
Jürgen Obmann, “Zu einer elfenbeinernen Dolchgriffplatte aus Nida Hedderneheim am Main”, J.R.M.E.S. 3,1992
Jürgen Obmann, op. cit.
56
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
56
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VI
SHEATHS
divinisation of the Emperor, political propaganda, and also
a apotropaic function.
In the Augustan Period glitz was widespread, as was a
new artistic style affected by the so-called “neoatticism”.1
As R. Bianchi Bandinelli describes: “the Augustan art
reaches its highest and most typical production … in the
craftsmanship of precious materials, destined to a public
from the high ranks of society … It is truly the art of silver,
inlaid gems, of glass treated like cameos … What Augustan
art produced in this field remained an example for the whole
duration of the Romans Empire.”2 The great splendour of
the costumes at the Imperial court, and in general in the
upper levels of society, is admirably described by Tacitus
in various passages in one of his greatest works3, allowing
himself to describe how the social climate of the austere
Republic was now very far away: “….and the richness
of the banquets, maintained with enormous expenditure
for one hundred years from the end of the Actium battle
until the feats of arms which brought Galba to power (31
B.C. – 69 A.D. n.d.a.), fell slowly into disuse ….. Whoever
was more splendid due to the availability of his means, his
sumptuous home and riches, the more distinguished his
name and clientele was.”4
“for Corbulo (the action took place during the rekindling of
the hostilities against the Sides for the control of Armenia
in 58 A.D. A.N.) it was more arduous to fight against the
sloth of the soldiers than against the perfidiousness of
the enemy … there were veterans who had never been on
guard duty … without helmets or armour, with their only
care to be elegant and make money.”5
This running after splendour probably reached its height
under Caligula – even if Claudius and Nero were no less
– who squandered in one year of his reign 27,000,000
aurei (Romans gold coins), saved by Tiberius during his
20-year reign.6
A great change set in when Augustus took power, and it was
represented by the Hellenistic cult of the Sovereign which
was reserved only for the imperial house and no longer
widespread among commanders or powerful Romanss as
in the Republican Period. Veneration of the Emperor was
the demonstration of loyalty towards Rome and its first
Representative, whose presence was strengthened by the
spread of his “Imago” and by symbols referring to him.
The portrait of the Emperor and symbols connected to him
were present on coins, statues and busts (widespread from
the taverns to the forums of the cities in the far Provinces)
just as one could find individual “miles” on banners and
weapons. The Imago of the Emperor was sacred because
his imperial majesty (maiestatis) and his divine power
(numen) acted through it. As Athanasius7 relates, “whoever
then adores the portrait, adores the Emperor in it. The
portrait is, in fact, his image and essence.” Whoever
treated the images of a divinised emperor without respect,
whoever removed or damaged the Imago of the emperor,
could have been accused of high treason.8
The divinisation of the Emperor favoured the development
of imperial propaganda which frequently coincided both
in purpose and form. It profoundly involved everything in
Romans society from that period: from monetary themes
to those of arms and military equipment;9 from literary
to monumental art forms10; because everything in all
Sheaths have always been an essential part of ancient
cutting weapons. Their main purpose was that of assuring
easy and safe transport of the weapon while hanging
from the soldier’s body. Despite this, in the I century
A.D. we experience the appearance of exemplars which
are particularly rich in decorative components and the
valuable materials used to create them. We do not believe
that these were only for aesthetic purposes, as has been
held until today, but that their purpose was above all for
political propaganda and apotropaic.
We, therefore, believe that it is right to begin our study
from this point – doubtlessly the most eye-catching – that
is to say the decorations and their related symbology, then
we will go on to tackle more technical subjects, such as the
suspension systems and construction techniques used, and
finally the chronological evolution.
Decorations: Evolution and Symbology
Decorations on sheaths are exclusively found on the
pugiones of type II. Their intrinsic symbology, and the
implications this suggests, is one of the most surprising
aspects of the weapon we are analysing.
During the Republican period, from the beginning of the
use of pugiones in the Romans panoply, the sheaths were
characterised by maximum simplicity and were basically
without any form of decoration, limited to being a simple
support instrument to contain the weapon. Very few such
ancient exemplars have survived, and all that is left of
them is a simple metal frame, onto which a covering
structure in organic material (wood, leather) was most
probably placed for its completion. Some rare exemplars
of Celtiberian origin are a little more elaborate with a
certain amount of carved decorations covering the surface,
but it is not certain whether these exemplars are of Romans
manufacture.
However, with the end of the Republic and the beginning
of the Principate a very strange phenomenon occurs; the
extreme simplicity suddenly stops and is replaced by a
complete change in direction, that is the sheaths begin to
be richly decorated in various symbols and ornaments. The
phenomenon is very evident, so much so as to bestow them
with the value of excellent craftsmanship if not as true works
of art, generating a sudden, polychrome and astounding
explosion of decorations in enamel and precious metals. It
must be remembered that the phenomenon concerns almost
all exemplars, with very few exceptions (among which we
recall two: one coming from Xanten and the other from
Mainz, no. F32 and F34 Chap. IX).
This transformation is too radical to have been merely
due to chance; and during a careful study we have noticed
that the appearance of these precious sheaths is connected
to multiple factors, such as: the fashion at the time, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The classicist cultural trend widespread in the ancient greek world, highly influencing the young boys of the Romans jet set;
Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, “Roma, l’arte nel centro del potere”, Ed. Rizzoli;
Annales;
Lib. III, 55;
lib. III, 35;
Richard Holland, “Nerone”, ed. Carocci.
Atanasio, Apologia contro gli Ariani, 3, 5, 5
Eckhard Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer, Storia delle province Romanse. Ed. Il Mulino, Universale Paperbacks.
Michel Feugere,” Weapons of the Romanss”, ed. Tempus pag. 203.
Paola Chini, “Vita e costumi dei Romansi antichi”, n°9, “La religione”, ed. Quasar, 1990.
57
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
57
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
the world had to emanate the power of Rome and of the
Emperor, and any means was valid to make him known
and render him honour.
It is possible to observe this evolutionary phenomenon
in the development of monetary and propagandist
themes which became more marked with the advent of
Julius Caesar as a consequence of the intensification
and provocation of political and armed conflicts11. But
it is with Augustus that the Imperial cult really began to
spread through political, cultural and religious propaganda
which aimed to gain universal approval for Rome and
the Emperor. More precisely, it was a phenomenon of
social cohesion for all the citizens of The Empire as well
as being a means of checking on all the local leaders,
since the Imperial cult they sustained was the way they
demonstrated their own approval of both Emperor and
Empire. On monetary themes the subject was no longer
the gens12, or the political party, but living individuals who
were in charge of their destiny. The absolute predominance
of one person over all the Romans state, in fact, made it
possible to exalt the propagandistic function to excess.
Even the cult of the Capitoline Triad was more and
more frequently substituted by the new cult of the state,
incarnated in the figure of The Emperor.
All this seems to have made a clear reflection on the
weapons – not only the pugiones but also on the helmets
and on the gladi – which we now see all rich in decor,
aesthetically very eye-catching and carefully made,
but consequently also very expensive. Just to have an
idea, consider the difference between helmets from the
Caesarian age (like the ‘Mannheim’ type) and those
from only a few decades later (the “imperial Gallic/Italic
type). Whereas the former were very simple in shape and
decoration, little more than a metal cap, the latter ones
often have every imaginable type of decoration, such as
silver ribbons, pietre dure etc.
The sheaths of cutting weapons make no exception and
during this period they are made in an abundance of
precious materials with images from mythology, imperial
propaganda and symbols; which only goes to confirm that
the decorative images are not just there for their own sake,
but they have a secondary purpose.
This observation leads us to believe that the value and
purpose of these decorations was probably one and the
same, even if the figurative message was represented in
a different manner due to the different dimensions of the
weapons.
The reason for the choice of symbols as a preferential
means for imperial propaganda is admirably explained
by René Guénon: “While the organisation of language
is analytical, conversational like human reasoning
itself, symbolism is essentially concise and, therefore,
intuitive. Its conciseness is what makes the symbol open to
absolutely limitless possibilities of conception and, in its
plasticity, makes it superior to language, which is, instead,
characterised, by more definite and fixed meanings.”13
If we observe the themes on the Imperial coins, we find
numerous images related to the classical divinity of the
Romans Pantheon (Jupiter, Apollo, Hercules, Mars, etc.)
or from the provinces (such as Serapis, sol invictus, Isis,
Heliogabalus, etc.) or finally to allegories of abstract
entity such as the figures of Genius, Victory, the goddess
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
of Rome, Happiness etc. everything always in connection
with the Imperial figure.
The deification of Augustus and his successors also
acquired the characteristic of conforming their likeness
to a divinity, for example Nero to Apollo, Commodus to
Hercules, Heliogabalus to the Sun.
Even Augustus himself, according to legend, was a direct
descendant of a divinity as he had been conceived in a
relationship between his mother and Apollo during a
ritual of sacred prostitution14, as Cassius Dio relates: “Atia
(Augustus’ mother A.N.) claims with absolute certainty
that she conceived him with Apollo, because, having once
fallen asleep in the temple of this god, it had seemed to
her as if she had had intercourse with a dragon, and at the
right moment she had born a child. Before the child was
born, Atia dreamt that her entrails were carried to the sky
and they were spread all over the earth; that same night
Octavius (father of Octavian, A.N.) dreamt that from his
wife’s womb the sun was born.”15
After the death of Augustus, problems arose regarding his
successor, and this political phenomenon was reflected
on the iconographic layout, where images of politicians
began to appear next to the symbolic figures.
Two well-known gladi demonstrating this are the
Gladiusblech of Bonn (where a young woman, probably
Julia, wife of Agrippa, is pictured between her sons
Gaius and Lucius Caesar, adopted by Augustus and,
therefore, the main heirs to the throne) and the so-called
sword of Tiberius (where it is believed that the figures of
Germanicus, Tiberius and Augustus are pictured).
Among the well-known pugiones only one, which
originated from an imprecise locality in the north of
France and is now preserved in the museum of Mainz
(Germany), pictures the effigy of an unidentifiable figure
(Chapter 9, exemplar 215).
The apotropaic element (from the Greek αποτρέπειν
apotrépein=”to keep away”) can be found in many figures
present on the sheaths of pugiones, as well as gladi; and
the significance of this is to be looked for in the weakness
and superstition of man, above-all ancient man. The miles
had to face death at every war conflict, exorcising it with
rites and apotropaic gestures, which psychologically
worked as a flight mechanism, keeping the danger away
and, therefore, also the fear which it generated.
In this way we have introduced the fundamental concept
that the decorations were not to be taken at face value, but
that they had a definite symbolism; and this hypothesis
finds confirmation in the writings of Edit B. Thomas16.
Re-proposing also what Gonzembach says, he states
– unfortunately dedicating only a brief mention to the
subject – that the decorations should be understood as
propaganda and that they were symbolic of belonging to
a specific legion. Unfortunately, modern understanding
of an ancient symbol is not always simple because a
modern meaning might not correspond with what would
normally have been associated with it at the time of its
creation. Consequently, it follows that a specific image
may be inappropriately deciphered even within a correct
symbolic-mythological explication. For this reason a
careful evaluation of the manuscript “Notitia Dignitatum”
17
has been made, which, despite being a later document,
Roberto Bartolini, “Monete di Roma Imperiale”, ed. Mondadori .
Paola Chini, “Vita e costumi dei Romansi antichi”, n°9, “La religione”, ed. Quasar, 1990.
René Guénon, “I simboli”.
Giuseppe Fazzini, “Vespasiano”.
Cassio Dione, “Storia Romansa”, Libro XLV, paragrafo 2-3. Ed. BUR
Edit B. Thomas, “Helme, schield, dolche, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.
The “Notitia Dignitatum” is an historical document of the late Empire, perhaps a kind of yearbook, written during Theodosius’ reign, but updated at
least until 425-429 A.D.
58
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
58
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VI - SHEATHS
has a collection of images and symbols of military and
civil officials whose full meaning nowadays is in many
cases unknown. It is important to find corresponding,
similar images both in this document and on the sheaths of
the pugiones: if in the former they have a precise symbolic
meaning, by deduction they must have the same in the
latter.
crown with 7 rays is typical of the initiation of the initiate.
On the other hand 12 rays can be referred to the 12 months
of the year and to the zodiacal months.
In Romans tradition, there were twelve vultures dictating
the good omen to Romulus, twelve greater gods, and
twelve rods made up the fasces.
Also the colour and the shape of the rays can have a
meaning. For P. Berger in “The Insignia” the beams
represent lances or arrows, whereas for G. Panciroli
(op. cit.) they represent valid defence against the enemy
opposed by the centre, made up of Imperial units. When
the rays form a type of diamond – a very ancient symbol of
divine lightning – they acquire the meaning of “death from
the sky” by means of “lightning projectiles” on behalf of
the divine Empire. On the emblem of the Balistarii juniors,
the Sun surrounded by rays, represented by red and blue
diamonds, alludes to the sharp points of the projectiles
which have been cast.
In modern times, some experts have defined the drawings
we have described as Suns as “rosettes”. It is necessary,
however, to observe that in Romans times only the wild
rose existed. Its name was given by Pliny The Elder, who
claimed that a Romans soldier was healed from rabies by
a decoction made with its roots. It is the ancestor of the
modern rose, whose large petals, which total 5, do not
correspond numerically to the representations we have
examined.
In any case, the rose was the symbol of the legio V
Macedonica Legion, whose value was certainly not a
florally Romanstic one, but certainly that of the sun. In
actual fact, many floral patterns have been connected to the
sun since the Paleolithic Age, and the wheels grasped by
the Celtic solar divinities often assume the shape of a rose.
In the Romans-Celtic world the rose is often associated
with solar symbols and even with Jupiter’s eagle, whereas
the relationship of the rose with death is typical of the
Romans world, symbolising eternal spring22.
SUN (Latin SOL) inside geometrical figures
Many religions, above all ancient ones, associate the sun
with an idea of divinity because everything in nature
depends on and is regulated by it18. This religious cult,
which was also followed by the Latin civilisation, was
introduced by the first Sabine king, Titus Tatius19.
The Sun is the origin and the centre, and from which
everything emanated. With this concept in mind the sun
has been universally represented as a point inside a circle.
In the Notitia Dignitatum numerous symbols are pictured
which experts are led to believe are sun types20, and the
figurative analogy with those pictured on the sheaths of
the pugiones, leads us to believe that they are connected
to the Sun too.
Frequently the Sun is inside a square. The square is
considered a symbol of the earth and this could suggest
that the Sun dominates over all the earth. However, as
Rome could be symbolised by a square (see symbol
“square”), we could also understand it to mean that Rome
impersonates the Sun.
Whereas in the Notitia Dignitatum a single Sun is depicted
per shield, with different colours, shape and number of
rays for each representation, in the pugiones there may be
one or more Suns per sheath, with different characteristics
for each one. This fact means that we can exclude the idea,
at least for the pugiones, that a representation of a Sun
could be the distinctive sign for a legion or an auxiliary
troop, partly contradicting what Edit. B. Thomas (op.cit)
stated.
On examining the symbolic meaning, for Panciroli21
a central circle enclosed within a larger circle has the
meaning that it is a single Imperium which holds together
the “Orbe Romansus”, whereas the rays surrounding the
circle indicate that the latter is protected from the violence
of enemies. In the Notitia Dignitatum we find suns with 34-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-16-18-20 rays, in the pugiones
the Suns are represented with 4-6-8-12-16-20 rays.
Sometimes the number of rays is totally casual, whereas
at other times their number acquires a symbolic value. For
example, the Sun with 7 rays is connected to the Mithraic
religion, where there are seven metal-planets, and the
18
19
20
21
22
23
LAUREL (Latin. LAURUS)
Ovid tells us in Metamorphosis how the nymph Dafne,
in order to escape the insistent amorous approaches of
Apollo, asked her father, the river god Peneus, for help,
who then transformed her into a laurel plant23. Apollo,
clasping her in his arms exclaimed: “As you cannot be
my spouse, well then you will be my tree. My foliage, my
cither, my quiver will always be entwined with you, oh
laurel,” thus becoming a sacred symbol for Apollo, and
consequently, as divine protector of art, the prize for poets
from “I Simboli”, Le Garzantine. Ed. Garzanti.
from “Mitologia - I miti greco-Romansi raccontati da Pierre Grimal”, ed. Garzanti.
Beniamino M. Di Dario, “La Notitia Dignitatum, immagini e simboli del Tardo Impero Romanso”, edizione Ar.
In “Commentarium”;
J. M. C. Toynbee, “Morti e sepoltura nel mondo Romanso”;
in “Metamorfosi”, I,450-567; X,92;
59
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
59
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
THE TEMPLE
as well as being used in prophetic rituals24. Laurel, being an
evergreen, furthermore represented immortality acquired by
means of victory, the emblem for both war and spiritual glory,
the distinction for victorious generals after a triumph25. The
victory weapons were bound with sprays of laurel and laid
before the effigies of Jupiter, as they had a purifying function
for spilt blood. In fact, the plant was also attributed to Jupiter,
and according to legend, among all those planted by man, it
was the only one never to have been struck by lightning.26
THE PALM TREE
The temple (from the Greek temenos) is the sacred area,
which is separated from the profane world by means of
walls30. The temple is a reflection of the divine world and
its architecture bears witness to the image that men have
of the divine31.
The symbolic reference found on the sheaths of pugiones
could be connected to imperial propaganda initiated by
Augustus in order to highlight the fact that the Emperor
and all his works were guided and protected by the god
Apollo. The representation could, therefore, be that
of a temple erected in Anzio to give thanks to the god
Apollo, as this god guided the victory of Augustus against
Sextus Pompeius and Anthony; or the temple of Apollo
Palatinus where the collection of oracles, called the
“Sibylline Books,” was kept because the Cumaean oracle
pre-announced the birth of Augustus, the pacatororbis,
according to Apollo’s wishes.
This plant is symbolically connected to Apollo because
this god was born on the sterile island of Delos at the foot
of a palm tree, the only tree present on the whole island.27
Ovid narrates that Rhea Silvia, before giving birth, saw
Romulus and Remus in a dream in the shape of a palm
tree, which was participating in the glory of Apollo, the
Eternal Sun: “Two palm trees were erect with a prodigious
appearance, and one was higher than the other. The whole
world was covered by its magnificent branches, and it
touched the furthest stars with its foliage”28
The palm tree is a universal symbol of victory, regeneration
and immortality29, and for this reason it was offered to the
winners and carried in moments of triumph. Due to the
shape of its leaves, which are similar to rays, and their
layout, it has always been associated with the myth of the
sun from the earliest of times. It is also associated with the
origins of Rome.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Another connection is that with the temple of Jupiter
Feretrius on the Capitolium, a place of cult, where trophies
of those who had killed an enemy king or commander in
single combat were deposited (the building was restored
by Augustus, and at various times during the Empire
many sovereigns re-proposed the same propagandistic
iconography).
THE CYPRESS TREE
Both because of its longevity and due to the
fact that it is an evergreen, this is a sacred
tree for many peoples. For the Greeks and
the Romanss it was a tree connected to the
cult of the dead, and even nowadays we
often find it adorning cemeteries32.
It was the symbol of various divinities:
Cronus (Saturn), Hesculapius, Apollo
due to the flame shape of its foliage;
and of many female divinities, such as:
Cybelus, Persephone, Aphroditis, Artemis,
Eurynome, Hera and Athena33.
Lucia Impelluso, “Dizionari dell’Arte – La natura ed i suoi simboli”, ed. Electa.
J. Chevalier e A. Gheerbrant, “Dizionario dei Simboli – miti, sogni, costumi, gesti, forme, figure, colori, numeri”, ed. BUR Rizzoli.
“I Simboli”, Le Garzantine. Ed. Garzanti.
Da “Mitologia - I miti greco-Romansi raccontati da Pierre Grimal”,ed. Garzanti.
A. Cattabiani & M.C. Fuentes, “Bestiario di Roma”, ed. Newton Compton.
J. Chevalier & A. Gheerbrant, “Dizionario dei Simboli – miti, sogni, costumi, gesti, forme, figure, colori, numeri”,ed. BUR Rizzoli.
“I Simboli”, Le Garzantine. Ed. Garzanti.
J. Chevalier & A. Gheerbrant, op. cit.
“J. Chevalier e A. Gheerbrant, op. cit.
“I Simboli”, Le Garzatine, ed. Garzanti.
60
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
60
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VI - SHEATHS
CIRCLES and SEMICIRCLES – MOON
a
b
d
c
e
A pattern of concentric circles or semicircles is present
in various cultures and is frequently connected to the
energy of the universe. The circle is also a sign for the sun,
whereas the semicircle can represent the moon.
The moon is the most important star together with the sun,
and whereas the latter is defined as a “masculine” figure,
the moon is associated with the feminine concept both
because of its connection with the menstrual cycle and
also due to the fact that as a celestial star it is illuminated
by reflected light. It symbolically represents “becoming,
renewal, transformation and growth” in relation to the
lunar phases, for at the death of a moon (waning moon)
there is always a rebirth (waxing moon). The ability of
this star to fecundate was highlighted in the changing
of the tides and, by means of the popular belief, in its
fecundating action on man, animals and vegetation34. The
moon guaranteed the continuity of life, and ancient Rome
was a symbol of longevity.
f
g
h
i
Fig. VI/7: Some symbols of Pelta from the Notitia Dignitatum: a)
Defensores b) Anglevarii c) Cornuti d) Sagitarii seniors Orientales
e) Falchovarii f) Secunda Felix Valentis Thebeorum g) Prima Flavia
Theososiana h) Prima Armeniaca
harmony of opposites (concord within the Empire).
According to an analysis by F. Altheim in Runen, the
crescent was likened to animal horns for northern
populations. To elevate an animal to becoming the
symbol for a troop held the meaning of elevating the
troop’s strength and courage. If we move on to examine
the meaning of some animals, we can notice how the
horns of the bull bring us back to the lunar meaning.
The bull is also a symbol for strength and the ability to
fecundate. In Mithraism the bull takes on the meaning
of death and resurrection. Concerning representations of
the wolf: it is the totemistic animal of Rome and of the
populations which participated historically in forming it:
the Etruscans adored Aita, an infernal god with the head
of a wolf; the Sabines represented Mamers in the shape of
a wolf, an analogous god to the Romans Mars; Soranus,
god of the underworld, in Osco-Umbrian language means
wolf; Veiovis, also considered a Zeus of the underworld
(Halicarnassus Dio), was considered the wolf-god.
For the ancient Romanss a divinity from the underworld
did not hold any negative, demonical connotations in
the Christian sense, but simply expressed an aspect of
the god. Macrobius wrote in the Saturnalia that “the
ancients represented the sun with a wolf” and added that
at Lyocopolis “ they honoured Apollo and the wolf, and
both were venerated by adoring the sun”. During the
Augustan Period, Apollo was identified with Soranus, and
Virgil of the Aeneid wrote “summe deum, sancticustos
Soractis Apollo”. The relationship between the wolf and
solar Apollo is also demonstrated by them having the same
roots in Greek: Lykos (wolf) and Lyke (light). The Lykeion
(lyceum or wolf skin) in Athens was the land around the
temple of Apollo; and Apollo was honoured in Argo as a
statue in the form of a wolf 38.
RHOMBUS or DIAMOND
This is a very ancient symbol, representing
the vulva (the pubic triangle) and,
therefore, connected to life, fertility and
regeneration35.
THE PELTA
The pelta is a symbol frequently found in a stylized form on
the Romans soldier’s armament (buckle of the cingulum,
end of the scabbard for the spatha etc.), which depicts a
light shield in the shape of a half moon, originally used by
the Thracians and popular first in Greece and then among
the oriental populations. Representations of Peltas can
be found on Etruscan sarcophaguses, on late Republican
funerary monuments, Republican and first Imperial
Age gladiator friezes, on Augustan jewels, and on the
Amazonomachy of Imperial Age sarcophaguses36. Usually
its image is used to represent the oriental peoples37, but
it is possible to obtain a more complete overview of its
pattern and symbology from the images in the Notitia
Dignitatum.
The image is composed of a crescent held up by a shaft, at
the ends of which are two opposing animal heads, such as:
wolves, bulls or snakes. The Panciroli (Commentarium)
discerns the symbol of the caduceus and, therefore, the
34
35
36
37
38
We must also remember that the standard bearers wore
wolf skins and a wolf skull on top of their helmets. In this
case the soldier was dressed in the guise of an animal not
“I Simboli”, Le Garzantine. ed. Garzanti
“J. Chevalier e A. Gheerbrant, op. cit.
Eugenio Polito, “Fulgentibus Armis, introduzione allo studio dei fregi d’armi antichi”. Ed. L’Erma di Brestschneider;
Waurick, “Rustung”, e T. Holscher, “JDL”;
A. Cattabiani e M.C. Fuentes, op. cit.
61
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
61
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
to terrorize the enemy but to favour his transformation
and in this way his possession by the beast-spirit, which
entered into the warrior39 and hence into all the Centuria,
- as he was representative of all the soldiers.
In the central part of the half moon where the pole is
met, Altheim catches sight of the rune “ing”, symbol
of the ancestral god of the Proto-Germanic people, the
Inguaeones, who Pliny and Tacitus speak about. There is
also the interpretation that it was the symbol of Virtus40,
because the literal meaning from Latin is man (from vir),
with reference to physical strength and warlike values, as
for example, courage.
5)Laocoòn, Apollo’s priest, died with his sons, surrounded
by the coils of two sea serpents sent by Apollo himself,
who was annoyed because the priest had not respected
his vow of celibacy and had lain with his wife in front of
his image, and fathered two sons.
Also the caduceus, symbol of Mercury, is composed of
two snakes, tangled around the golden rod of god, looking
at each other. It is the emblem of peace and friendship
among peoples, and represents cosmic harmony which is
born from the balance of opposites42.
THE SQUARE
SINUSOID and SNAKE COIL
Rome was generally called “urbs quadrata” (square city)
by the ancients, and Plutarch himself states that Rome
was at the same time a circle (the mundus, the circular pit
where offers were thrown for the establishment of the city)
and a square, which represented the area of the city. The
shape of Rome was circular, but we must understand the
concept of a square in the sense that it was quadripartite,
that is divided into four parts by two main roads, the Cardo
and the Decumanus, which intersected at a central point.
Therefore, the square represents Rome. Also the legionary
fort, built on a precisely square partition base, represented
Rome on foreign territory43.
According to Varro, upholder of Pythagorical philosophy44,
the square is the most well proportioned of all geometric
shapes because the “quadratus” encompasses proportion
and regularity expressed by the concept of balance45.
Rome was called “urbs quadrata” by the ancient peoples,
although to this day this expression entails certain
difficulty for modern-day interpretation46. In fact, the
reference could refer to the ritual carried out by Romulus
for the foundation of the city, as Dionysius of Halicarnassus
writes, “he drew a quadro-angled shape on the top of a
hill, tracing a continuous furrow with a plough drawn by
a bull and a cow, upon which the wall was destined to rise
up”47 which is also confirmed by Appian48.
Other authors indicate “Roma quadrata” (square Rome)
as a sacred place which temporally precedes the Romulus
pomerius: more precisely, Plutarch identifies it as a
sacred area on the Palatine where Romulus received the
omens before founding the city49. The same hypothesis
is mentioned by Tsetse, a Byzantine scholiast50, Varro
The curved lines carry a meaning of naturalistic origin
(snake, wave, crescent, horns, hooks, whirl etc.), connected
to the category of signs representing energy, the cycle of
time and becoming.
The snake is the symbol of primeval water, from which
everything originates and which everything returns to for
regeneration. Its seasonal renewal, by shedding its skin
and going into hibernation, has made it a symbol of the
continuous life and death cycle (curled up snake), and of
its relationship with the underground (underworld and
kingdom of the dead) and consequently with all ancestors.
The snake, whether directly or indirectly, enters into the
myth of Apollo by means of various accounts:
1)Apollo frees the oracle of Delphi from the snake Python
created by Hera in order to make Leto, Apollo’s mother,
suffer (symbolic narration of the victory of the god who
dominates and illuminates natural powers).
2)Cassandra received the gift of prophecy from two snakes
inside Apollo’s temple.
3)Lamos, son of Apollo, was brought up by snakes and
gave rise to a long line of priests.
4)Augustus’ mother was visited in a dream by a snake in
the temple of Apollo41.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
C. Sighinolfi, “I guerrieri lupo nell’Europa arcaica. Aspetti della funzione guerriera e metamorfosi rituali presso gli indoeuropei”, Rimini 2004.
Eugenio Polito, “Fulgentibus Armis, introduzione allo studio dei fregi d’armi antichi”. Ed. L’Erma di Brestschneider.
“Dizionario dei Simboli – miti, sogni, costumi, gesti, forme, figure, colori, numeri” J. Chevalier e A. Gheerbrant. Ed. BUR Rizzoli.
“Bestiario di Roma,” A. Cattabiani e M.C. Fuentes - Ed.Newton Compton.
“Dizionario dei Simboli – miti, sogni, costumi, gesti, forme, figure, colori, numeri” J. Chevalier e A. Gheerbrant. Ed. BUR Rizzoli.
Musti, “Varrone nell’insieme delle tradizioni su Roma quadrata”, within “Gli storiografi latini tramandati in frammenti. Atti del convegno”. Quaderni
urbinati di cultura classica, Urbino, 1975.
A. Carandini, D. Bruno, “La casa di Augusto dai Lupercalia al Natale”. Ed. Laterza, Bari, 2008.
Mastrocinque Attilio, “Roma quadrata”. Melanges de l’Ecole francaise de Rome. Antiquité T. 110, n.2 1998. Pp. 681-697.
Dionisius Alicarnassi, “Romans antiquities”., Floriana Cantarelli, Milano 1984.
App., fr la 9
Rom. 9 e 11
Tzetze, In Lycophr. 1232
62
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
62
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VI - SHEATHS
and the decumanus (East-West axis) which intersected at
a central point.
Therefore, the square represented Rome because the
geometric shape was based on the ancient directional
location, which at the same time recalled a sacred function.
Also the legionary camp, built on a precise quadripartition
base, represented Rome on foreign territory55.
Ultimately, the circle alludes to celestial reality, whereas
the square refers to subordinate earthly reality56 57. From
this perspective it is easy to understand how Rome is
identified not only with the earthly world but also with
the celestial one by embodying in its plan the circle/square
dialectic, which is typical of all sacred architecture58.
THE EAGLE
The eagle is the symbol
of Rome as it is linked
to the cult of Jupiter and
the sun. Pliny the Elder
relates the news: “that
only this bird has never
been killed by lightning,
so tradition has made it
Jupiter’s armiger.” In
antiquity it was considered capable of staring at the sun
without closing its eyes (living symbol of being able to
approach the divinity without suffering any destructive
effects)59.
The emperors, as representatives on earth of divine
Authority, used it as their symbol and the emblem of
dominion of the Romans Empire.60
Diagram VI/1: graphic diagram of the method followed to identify
the East-West axis during the foundation ritual for a sacred building.
(Drawing by the author).
(related by Solinus)51 and Verrius Flaccus. The latter, the
most authoritative according to Attilio Mastrocinque52,
writes that “from the beginning, this place (situated on the
Palatine in front of the temple of Apollo, A/N) has been
supplied with a stone in a square shape (place on a sacred
area containing the offers for the foundation A/N)”. This
place was remembered by Ennius when he says: “et- qui
est erat-Romae regnare quadratae.”53
We can understand better the circle-square dialectic
by studying the ritual for the foundation of religious
monuments which is at the base of the establishment of
the ancient city. This is due to the fact that buildings were
part of an order connected to a higher reality in antiquity:
the buildings, made by man and raised up according to
the sacred ritual, were on a level with shapes created by
divinity. Seeing as the temple (or the city) was an earthly
representation of the universe – seen as physical space
– but also its temporal representation – seen as an image of
the cosmogenesis which forms the universe from a central
point – its foundation took place by means of a precise
ritual. The priest erected a pillar (YZ) around which a
circle was traced out, the radius of which was double the
height of the pillar, so as to form a solar clock, that is to
say a sundial (fig. VI/1). In the morning and evening the
shadow of the pillar (which acted as a gnomon) met two
specific points (A and B) on the circumference, which
when joined together made up the East-West axis.
THE LEAF OF VINE
The vine recalls the cult of
Dionysus and the mysteries of
death, which are also those of
rebirth and knowledge. The vine
was an expression of plant life
representing immortality, just as
wine is the symbol of youth and
eternal life61.
THE HOURGLASS
The hourglass shape, formed
by two triangles joined together
at the top, can have endless
meanings. It can be a symbol
for the regenerating Mother
Goddess, above all if associated
with other signs of life, such
The priest, after having carried out the augurium and
identified the fundamental direction of the pivot (North/
West – South/East direction), pointed it out to the surveyor
who made the plan for the sacred building or city by means
of the groma.54 This, just like the military camp, was
quadripartite according to the cardo (North-South axis)
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Solinus I. 17
Mastrocinque Attilio, “Roma quadrata”. Melanges de l’Ecole francaise de Rome. Antiquité T. 110, n.2 1998. Pp. 684.
P. 310 L
Tool to draw on the ground straight and orthogonal lines;
From”Dizionario dei Simboli – miti, sogni, costumi, gesti, forme, figure, colori, numeri” J. Chevalier e A. Gheerbrant. Ed. BUR Rizzoli.
Note that, above all in India, that symbolism is often reverse. In fact, if we consider the square in its metaphysical meaning of immutability and
stability of the Principle, it becomes the direct reflection of the perfection of the One and All, whereas the circle is understood as an emblem of
becoming increasingly cosmic and, therefore, it the symbol of a subordinate reality. The sky is hence associated with the square, whereas the earth
with the circle. In fact, one can read in the Satapatha Brahmana (VII, I, I, 37) that the altar of the earth (garhapatya) is round, whereas that of the sky
(ahavaniya) is square.
R. Guénon, op- cit., pp. 135-140;
we thank dr. T. Lorenzetti for consulting on that symbology;
Beniamino M. di Dario, “La Notitia Dignitatum, immagini e simboli del Tardo Impero Romanso”. Ed. Ar.
“Bestiario di Roma”, A. Cattabiani & M.C. Fuentes - Ed.Newton Compton.
“Dizionario dei Simboli – miti, sogni, costumi, gesti, forme, figure, colori, numeri” J. Chevalier & A. Gheerbrant. Ed. BUR Rizzoli.
“I Simboli”, Le Garzantine. Ed. Garzanti.
63
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
63
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
HERCULES
as water and energy. When this shape represents the
hourglass itself, as a timer, it symbolises the eternal
passing of time. (Lamartine) The hourglass is not a symbol
of death, but represents caducity, the passing of time, an
invitation to virtue, so that the time allotted to man may
not be voluntarily shortened by dissipated behaviour62.
“V” SIGNS AND CHEVRONS
The “V” or Chevron
(upturned “V” shape)
are signs which have
been present since
the paleolithic age,
both on vases and on
numerous
artefacts,
symbolising
both
birds and the Mother
Goddess, giver of life
(the “V” symbolises
a generating function,
thus
presenting
a
connection with the
pubic triangle). The
relationship between
femininity and birds
is also represented on
vases and statuettes
with
ornithomorphic
features.
At times the V or the Chevron pattern can appear together,
giving rise to an X or a cross. There are numerous variants:
multiple signs arranged in columns, drawn opposite each
other, inverted etc.
Heracles (Hercules in Latin) is a mystical name which
was given by Apollo, and whose meaning is “the glory of
Hera” because all the labours that he was to complete were
to serve towards the glorification of the goddess Hera.
This sheath, decorated with mythological scenes, was
presented by R. Forrer63 and is a rarity among the various
decorative typologies of pugiones. In fact, even though
the image is typically quadripartite, it shows some scenes
relating to the myth of Hercules, instead of the typical
propagandistic/symbolic drawings.
In detail no.1 of the previous pictures, we find the third
labour of Hercules, imposed on him by Eurystheus,
concerning the Erymanthian boar. Heracles captured
the monstrous boar alive, which lived on Erymanthia,
and brought it back on his shoulders to Mycenae. When
Eurystheus saw it, he was taken by fear and hid in an
earthenware jug he had prepared as a refuge in case of
danger.
The second and third detail could represent the first of
the great expeditions undertaken by Hercules, when he
freed Hermione from the sea monster. The king of Troy,
Laomedon, had refused to pay Apollo and Posseidon the
agreed wage after they had built the city walls, and thus
incurred their anger. Apollo sent a plague to infest the
city, and Poseidon sent a sea monster, which devoured the
inhabitants.
Hermione, the king’s daughter, was offered by her father
to be eaten by the monster after an oracle had revealed that
the calamity could only be dispelled by such a sacrifice.
At the moment in which Hermione was about to be killed
by the monster, Heracles arrived in Troy and offered
himself up to save the girl. Even in this case, Laomedon
did not keep his promise, and did not give Heracles the
recompense he had agreed to: the Arab mares Zeus had
once given him as a gift.
The fourth detail seems to depict the descent to the
underworld by Heracles. When the dead saw him arrive,
they ran away in fear, and in this circumstance the godhero freed Theseus and Ascalafo, gave some bloody
libations to the dead in order to bestow some life on them,
and tamed the dog, Cerberus, which he took back up onto
the earth.
THE HOOK
This is a sign for energy, the stimulator of
life, and it is linked to the curved rod of
the shepherd, his dignity and power. The
“aurispici” possessed the “Lituus” which
characteristically had this shape. The hooks
can be placed in opposite directions and
look like horns.
THE COCKADE
This symbol has not been described, but having found it
depicted on numerous occasions on the emblems in Notitia
Dignitatum, we are led to believe that it had a specific
meaning which is not known to us at present.
63
Michel Feugere, “Weapons of the Romanss” pag. 126-127.
64
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
64
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VI - SHEATHS
In mystical thought, the labours of Hercules represent
the “tests of the soul, which is progressively freed from
slavery of the body and passions”.64
towards 40 B.C., the Cumaen oracle announces the birth
of an important person (Augustus) who would have
established a new golden age according to the wishes
of Apollo, bringing back order and prosperity. Augustus
defined himself as the pacatororbis (peacemaker), he,
who would have dominated the Romans Empire and
made peace in all the world,; he, whose coming was
already foreseen by the gods. In honour of god and in
order to please his Emperor, the Romans poet Horace also
composed the famous Carmen Saeculare.
Therefore, Apollo was the special protector of Augustus,
whose cult became one of the most important means in
his plan for religious renewal and personal propaganda.
After the battle of Actium, whose victory against Anthony
was attributed to the protection of the god, the Emperor
had the ancient temple of Apollo Sosianus renovated and
enlarged; he established five-yearly games in his honour
and financed also the construction of the temple of Apollo
Palatinus, where the collection of oracles, known as the
Sibylline Books, were kept.
In late, Greek antiquity, Apollo was also identified as god
of the sun and in many cases superseded Helios as the
bringer of light and charioteer of the solar chariot. A similar
“passing on of attributes” occurred also with the Romanss,
when, starting with the late Republican Age, Apollo became
the “alter ego” of Sol Invictus, one of the most important
Romans divinities. Apollo was normally depicted wearing
a crown of laurel, a plant symbolising victory under which
some legends have it the god was born.
His typical qualities were archery and the zither. Another
of his characteristic emblems was the sacrificial tripod,
symbol of his prophetic powers. Animals which were
sacred to the god included swans (symbol of beauty),
wolves, locusts (symbolising music and song), and
hawks, ravens and snakes again; the latter referring to his
oracular powers. Another symbol of Apollo is the griffin, a
mythological animal of distant, oriental origin67.
VARIOUS DECORATIONS
If we take a close look at the sheaths,
there are numerous signs and patterns
to be seen which we have not described
here for lack of space. It is worth
mentioning the Celtic decorations, or in
Celtic style, which we find on a pugio
found in Usk (no. 196 Chap. IX), where,
instead of geometrical patterns a floral
style is developed occupying the whole
length of this scabbard65.
If we consider all the patterns on the
various pugiones together, the symbol
of the Sun is depicted very frequently
and often there is more than one sun
on a sheath. Also images of the Laurel
and Circles/Semicircles are very often
pictured, certainly more so than those of
the Temple, the Cypress and the Palm,
which are less widespread (and which
can often be easily confused with the
Laurel - for which reason they have been
marked with a question mark on the table). We have only
recorded the presence of other symbols on one other find.
Many sheaths of pugiones are not classified on the table.
This is the consequence of the Author’s limitation, either
because it was not possible to make an adequate study of
the images available or due to his inability to understand
the sign and associate it with a precise symbol.
Many of the highlighted symbols have a direct or indirect
connection with Apollo, and consequently with Augustus
as he was his protégé. As the first Emperor of Rome, when
he obtained power, he made it absolutist, while keeping
the form of Republican administration.
Quoting the words of Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli: “the
Pax Augusta did not mark for the Romanss the achievement
of an objective for which they had long battled, but the
end of a period of anguish, danger, agonizing uncertainty
about tomorrow, continual changing of situations, which
had all become unbearable for all those who had not been
direct protagonists on the political scene. Essentially, even
the Pax Augusta was based on pretence. This pretence
was, however, even accepted by those who did not profit
from it, because they were tired of fighting. It was a
password which met with enthusiasm on various stratums;
even among the opposition.”66
Therefore, Augustus, in order to send a message of
peace and stability throughout the Empire, promoted an
important form of propaganda, making use of the help of
authoritative authors, such as Virgil and Horace, attributing
to himself divine protection and descent.
In the Aeneid, written by Virgil, the Iulius family
descended from Venus. Aeneas was, in fact, the Trojan
hero, and being the son of Venus, was of divine origin. As
his son, Ascanius Iulius, was a descendant of the “gens”
(clan) of Iulius,(Julian), a divine connection between
Augustus and Venus herself ensued.
In the IV Eclogue of the Virgilian Bucolicae, written
64
65
66
67
Augustus also personified the new Heracles/Theseus,
symbolised in this way in the Amazonomachy myth, as
winner of the enemy forces in the struggle of the Greeks
against the barbarians, but also Mars Ultor as vindicator of
the death of Julius Caesar.
As we can see, many symbolic elements found on the
sheaths are not simple decorations with no other purpose,
but they are part of the political propaganda developed
by Emperor Augustus and which lasted for all the JulioClaudian dynasty.
However, the surprising facts do not end here.
As time went by the evolution of pugiones seems to
have unexpectedly brought the sheaths and weapons
themselves back to their original characteristics typical of
the Republican Age: to austerity and lack of decoration.
As sudden as the change from Republican simplicity to
the glitz of the I century occurred, no less sudden was the
return to original plainness.
Finds of exemplars of pugiones of type III are not rare,
often together with their sheaths, and we notice in all of
them the complete lack of any type of décor or symbol.
Also in this case we should wonder why this inversion of
tendency occurred and try to understand if is connected to
a more general change on the part of Romans society.
I miti greco-Romansi raccontati da Pierre Grimal”, Ed. Garzanti.
Ian. R. Scott, “First century military daggers and the manufacture and supply of weapons for the Romans army”.
R. Bianchi Bandinelli, “Roma, l’arte Romansa nel centro del potere”, Ed. Rizzoli.
“Il vento d’oriente – alla scoperta delle radici della cultura occidentale”, Ignazio Marino Ceccherelli, Ed. IEI 1989.
65
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
65
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
TABLE VI / 1
Pugio
Sun
Laurel
187
190
191
2 to 9 rays
2 to 8 rays
2 a 6 rays
1 a 8 rays
Palm
Temple
●
●
●
●?
●
●?
Cypres-s
Circles/
Semicircles
Rhombus
Pelta
Sinusoid
Square
eagle
192
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
202
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
2 vine leafs
1 to 12 rays
1 to 8 rays
1 to 6 rays
●
2 to 8 rays
1 to 6 rays
5 to 8 rays
3 to ? rays
F12
2 to 8 rays
1 to 8 rays
2 to 8 rays
1 to 8 rays
2 to 8 rays
1 to 8 rays
1 to 12 rays
●
●?
●
●
●?
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
hourglass
●
Chevron
chevron
- hook
●
●
●
●
●?
●
●?
●
●
2 lines of 5
cockades
●
●
Chevron
●
●
●
●
●
●
Chevron
●
●
Chevron
●
●
●
●
●
2 to 12 rays
1 to 16 rays
●
●
F20
F21
●
4 line of 4
cockards
●
F22
F23
F24
F26
F27
F29
F33
writing
●
Hercules
2 to 16 rays
1 to 12 rays
1 to 16 rays
8 suns
●
1 to 6 rays
1 sun
●
F19
●
●
F11
F16
F18
●?
●
2 to 8 rays
1 to 12 rays
F15
●
●
F6
F7
F8
F9
F14
Various
decorations
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
5 to 8 rays
●
V signs
●
●
Tab. VI/1: presence of symbols on the various exemplars of pugiones. For numbering refer to Chap. 9 – data base archaeological finds. Where
the question mark “?” appears, there is uncertainty in identifying the symbol.
66
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
66
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VI - SHEATHS
Fig. VI/1: schematization of some suspension systems used by various ancient populations.
A) Celtic sword: small metallic bridge applied onto the sheath, through which a leather throng or a chain was passed.
B) Etruscan/Villanovian sword: sheath in bronze onto which the belt was tightly bound.
C) Shardanian dagger: carried diagonally on the chest by a bandoleer, it was attached to this by means of rings on one side of the sheath.
D) Iberian sheath for dagger.
E) Romans pugio. Attached to the cingulum by means of two upper rings.
Some authors68 tend to date this change to the advent
of the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty (from the election of
Nerva to the death of Septimius Severus in 193 A.D..) but
from the information at hand we are convinced that the
beginning should be anticipated by some decades to the
ascent to power of Vespasian. He was doubtlessly one of
the greatest emperors in all the history of Rome and a great
innovator, capable of giving clear signs of discontinuity
from the ways of his predecessors, much more than the
Antonians did with the Flavians. The words of Gianni
Fazzini (“Vespasian”) express this: “for what he was able
to do, he may be considered one of the greatest Romans
emperors: he found the houses of the State in disastrous
condition but he redeveloped them, …. He managed
to give to the Romans people a period of peace and
prosperity, and he also built a new constitutional structure
for the State which lasted two centuries. After Augustus, he
is the second founder of The Empire.”
We recall, among many, some of the main innovations he
brought, which may be of interest for the subject of this
book:
- he was completely averse to the exaggerated adulation
towards the figure of the emperor, which had been typical
of the previous period, probably thanks to his bourgeois
origins and the practical sense which distinguished him.
- as an administrator he was uncompromising, and
indifferent to instrumental acts of flattery towards him.
He began a strict policy for curbing expenses and a
rigorous recovery of the State’s finances, which were
in a very difficult state due to the damage caused by the
recent civil war and the administration of the previous
emperors.
- he promulgated the “Lex de imperio Vespasianii” in
69 A.D., with which he established that both himself
and all successive emperors would have to base their
command on legal principles, and not on divine powers
as his predecessors had done since the Julio-Claudian
dynasty.
- he was a man of simple tastes, completely the opposite
of figures, such as Nero and Claudius. Tacitus tells us
the “the strongest drive towards rules of moderation
came from Vespasian, and he was an example, himself,
of simple life according to the ancient dictates.”69
68
69
70
Abandoning the custom to make such glitzy and expensive
sheaths for weapons, and the consequent return to
simplicity and economy is perfectly consistent with the
sort of revolution Vespasian brought about.
In fact, the first idea to disappear was that of hailing the
emperor as a god; also in the symbols on the weapons,
which were in some way dedicated to him, the custom (and
need) to adulate the emperor always and in every manner
disappeared; and finally, the necessity to cut all superfluous
costs, also and above all in the army, was manifest.
All this rendered the glitzy and highly expensive symbolic
decorations of the sheaths of the pugiones and gladi not
only useless but also damaging, and it is not a hazardous
guess to believe that Vespasian, himself, ordered their
drastic reduction, if not specifically at least in the form of
a more general series of regulations.
As we have said, this is how the weapons and their sheaths
now came to be plain, functional and economical, directed
exclusively at serving the legionary for war purposes, and
not used for ulterior objectives. And so they remained until
the moment of their disappearance.
Nevertheless, one must not make the mistake of believing that
this innovation occurred from one year to the next, however
sudden it may have seemed. Historically and socially this is
almost impossible, so one should consider a suitable period of
co-existence between both types of weapon.
SUSPENSION SYSTEMS
The Romans soldiers carried the pugio on their left side,
inserted in its sheath and hanging from a cingulum70. The
gladius, instead, was on the right, also hanging from a
cingulum specifically made for it (at least until this was
substituted by a balteus towards the end of the II century).
Celtic suspension system (fig. VI/1-A)
We know that the centurions inverted this arrangement as a
distinctive sign of their rank, carrying the gladius on their
left and the pugio on their right.
M. Bishop in “Romans Military Equipment”; Ian. R. Scott, “First century military daggers and the manufacture and supply of weapons for the
Romans army”.
“Annales”, III, 55;
the cingulum was a leather belt used up to the end of the I cent. A.D., from whom the weapon was hung. Romans soldiers often wore two of them,
one for the gladius and one for the pugio. Both were richly decorated with square metallic plaques, and usually from that for the pugio even the apron
was hung. It had been partially replaced by a balteus on the beginning of the II cent. A.C.
67
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
67
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
penetrated Romans culture. Curiously enough, Romans
weapons with similar techniques to this one are not
Republican nor from the first Empire when contact with
the Celts was contemporary or at least not far away in
time. Some rather come from the late Empire, hence
several centuries later. In the spathae from the III century
onwards, we do actually find very similar components to
the Celtic one just seen.
Suspension system of italic populations (fig. VI/1-B):
Fig. VI/2: detail of the suspension system of a Celtic sword from II-I
century B.C. The small bridge, attached to the sheath with a special
metal structure and rivets, is clearly distinguishable. A belt made of
chain or a simple leather one was attached to this.
There are abundant archaeological finds often together
with sheaths from populations of Etruscan and Villanovian
culture, whereas those with belts are decidedly more rare.
The sheaths are always in an extended, triangular shape, not
very decorated and often provided with an end pommel. In
more ancient times they were in bronze, whereas in Etruscan
culture we find them also in leather and wood72.
A common characteristic is the frequent absence of
metallic components to attach them to the belt (or to a
baldric) instead, their surface is often flat without any
other components.
This leads us to suppose that there was not a particular
system for suspending the sheath, but that they resorted
to the use of leather or canvas thongs, which were tightly
wound around it.
Some daggers from the Samnite culture originating from
Campovalano (Italy) and Alfedena (Italy) are of greater
interest, presenting a sort of metal strap on their sheaths,
equipped with a hole with a short chain attached, which in turn
was used to attach it to the belt. In this way the weapon seems
to have been hung from one side only in an oblique position.
Once more, we do not notice any analogy with the systems
used by the Romanss, who seem to know nothing of
the traditions of the Italic populations even if they were
particularly near to them from both a geographical and
cultural point of view.
Fig. VI/3: diagram of the main
suspension systems of bi-globular
daggers from the Iberian peninsula.
1: “side hilt” suspension type;
2: “isolateral” system type;
3a: “left diagonal” system type;
3b; “right diagonal” system type.
Both the gladius and the pugio were connected to a
cingulum by a substantially identical technique, which was
so typical that it has become a true characteristic of these
two Romans weapons. In any case, this is once again not a
Romans invention, but borrowed from previous cultures.
These populations, which often influenced the Romans
military world in many ways, used essentially different
methods from the Romanss to attach their weapons to their
belts. They usually equipped the sheaths of their swords
with a sort of metal bridge fixed to the structure below by
means of metal rivets, inside which they inserted a belt,
which could have been of two types: the first, which we
can define as “chain mail”, was technologically advanced
and certainly reserved for high rank warriors because
of its elevated cost. It was made of a chain of advanced
craftsmanship, designed in a way to give freedom of
movement, which was indispensable in battle.
Suspension system of the shardanian population
(fig. VI/1-C):
The only reference worth noting is from the Shardanian
culture, which has left us various examples of sheaths with
a pair of rings on one only side of the weapon.
In his case we do find a certain similarity with the Romans
ones, however, it is less pronounced than it might seem
as the rings are arranged in such a way as to force the
weapon to be worn almost horizontally or at least slightly
obliquely, whereas the Romans weapon was always in a
vertical position. We have already mentioned the only
known exception in Chapter 1 – the funerary tombstone of
the centurion Mincius Lorarius – which we are referring to
now, and which seems to be the one which is closest to this
suspension system.
Another analogy worth mentioning is the warriors depicted
on the stelae of Lunigiana, who appear to be armed with
daggers worn in exactly the same manner.
It ended in a hook to close it, often made with such care
that it became a small, Celtic work of art71.
The second is rather similar but less elaborate, as the chain
was substituted by a simple, leather belt assisted by some
metal rings for knotting; so, much more economical and,
therefore, possible to be produced for a large number of
armed soldiers.
This technology in its simpler, leather variant, may be
considered more valid and efficient, and certainly more
appropriate for the mass production necessary for an
army, such as the Romans one. Nevertheless, it scarcely
71
72
Iberian suspension system (fig. VI/1-D):
There are numerous weapons originating from this culture,
and so it follows that we have been able to deepen our
knowledge of their characteristic suspension systems with
Giovanni Banfi, “L’armamento dei Celti”, ed. il Cerchio.
I. Fossati, “Gli eserciti etruschi”. Ed. “Militare Italiana”.
68
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
68
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VI - SHEATHS
certain precision. The use of suspension rings has been
recorded since the beginning of the Iron Age, and some
weapons have them still intact and dating already from the VI
century B.C., even if at such an early age we also find other
types of system being used which are closer to the Celtic use.
They become much more frequent towards the III century
B.C. and in particular with the advent of the bi-globular
dagger (cf Chap. I). In any case, we must point out that the
Iberian sheaths never have four rings (one pair on each side),
but almost always only two, placed mainly in three ways73:
- System with “side hilts” (fig. VI/3;1), of the three, the
most archaic as it is present already from IV B.C. and it
shows interesting details which we will look at in more
detail later. There are two metal components placed on
both sides at the top of the sheath in the shape of small
hilts onto which it was attached by means of two metal
hooks ending in a small disc, and which were fixed onto
the belt.
- “Isolateral” system (fig. VI/3;2). This consists in two
rings put onto one side only. It appeared not earlier than
the II century B.C. and was pre-eminently Celtiberian
technology. A good number of exemplars have
been found, mainly from the archaeological sites of
Carretiermes and Numancia.
- “Diagonal” system (fig. VI/3;3a-3b). This consists in two
rings, one on each side of the sheath, placed diagonally,
appearing from the IV century B.C. onwards. Their
layout gives rise to two subgroups: “right diagonal” if
the upper one is on the right; and “left diagonal” if it is
on the left.
Fig. VI/4: reproduction of a Celtiberian warrior imaginatively
equipped with two daggers, with the aim of clarifying which position
the weapon assumed according to the layout of the suspension rings.
In this case, we have a “right diagonal suspension”(2) on the right
side, whereas on the abdomen an “isolateral suspension” (3b). It can
be noticed how the former makes the sheath lean forwards, whereas
the latter makes it take on a horizontal position.
details shown on the funerary stelae are so numerous and
above all so well made that they give us a comprehensive
overview and leave us with no doubts. We recall among
them those of Publius Favoleius Cordus, Annaius
Daverzus, Hyperanor, Tiberius Iulius Abdes, Firmus,
Genialis, as well as some unknown soldiers.
They clearly show us that the weapon was connected to
the cingulum only by a pair of upper rings using a hook
which was richly decorated on top (note the similarity
with the Celtiberian “hilt” system). A fact emerges, which
is as evident as it is surprising, that the pair of lower rings
seem to be completely unused for the suspension of both
the pugiones and the gladi. We define this as surprising
because it appears hardly rational to spend energy and
materials to provide weapons with a component which
is then left unused, and it is therefore normal that the
modern expert attempts to find its practical function at
all costs. We believe, however, that the iconographic
representations are sufficiently clear so as not to allow
space for other interpretations.
It is necessary to point out that this difference is not
marginal because it indicates on which side the weapon was
hung (see fig. VI/4). On Celtiberian territory we find a net
prevalence of the “right diagonal” system, which makes us
understand that they carried their daggers on the right.
As said, experts believe that each of these systems was
connected to a specific way of wearing the weapon, and
on this subject we remember that Eduard K. De Prado
(op cit) suggested that the “isolateral” type compelled the
soldier to wear his weapon in a horizontal position; the
“left diagonal” type with the upper part tilted forwards if
worn on the left side; and the “right diagonal” type with
the upper part tilted forwards if worn on the right side.
The author does not mention the “lateral hilt” type, but it
appears evident that the weapon was worn vertically.
A vague element of doubt may arise from the fact that the
stelae were originally painted75, and so it is possible that the
original colouring suggested something which is now lost, but
at the actual state of things this does not seem very credible.
Some exemplars preserved in the museum of Vindonissa
(Brugg-Swizerland) suggest that between the rings on
the sheath and the metal component which connected to
the cingulum there was another simple connection made
with a metal thread (fig. VI/6, element 3). The particular
exemplar which shows this does not have any rings but a
type of hinge. In any case, we may hypothesise that it was
used also in the presence of the classic rings. We also cannot
exclude that small leather straps were used as a substitute,
even if this is not very convincing as they would be too frail
to sustain the wear and rubbing caused by the movement of
the sheath against the metal parts for long.
We can, therefore, see that the use of rings for suspension
is a characteristic which we find largely among Iberian
and Celtiberian populations, with some signs of it in the
Shardanian population. It is not to be excluded that the
latter had in some way influenced the Iberians, or that they
influenced each other.
The fact remains that the Romanss adopted this system,
adapting it to their needs, which led to their custom of
providing the pugiones and gladi with four rings and
carrying their weapons more or less vertically.
The classics do not help us understand how these four
rings were used and how the weapon was connected to the
belt, whereas there are many theories in modern literature,
some acceptable and others less so74. However, as far as
the pugio is specifically concerned, we believe that the
73
74
75
Eduardo k. De Prado- “El puñal bidiscoidal peninsular”, Gladius, XXVIII (2008).
On regards, see the interesting article by P.J .Hazell “The Pedite Galdius”;
Adrian Goldsworthy, “storia completa dell’esercito Romanso”, ed Logos.
69
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
69
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Fig. VI/5: from the left: stele of Flavoleius Cordus, unknown legionary, unknown legionary, Annaius. These are some of the many where we
can clearly see the representation of the suspension system of the pugiones (the second fig. from the left is of a gladius). In all of them we can
clearly distinguish the pair of lower rings without any components or system to connect them to the cingulum. It is interesting to note the folds
of the tunic underneath, which highlights even more their lack of use. What is more, in the first and even more evidently in the third we can
clearly see the metal components which connect the sheath to the cingulum. The letters on the photos indicate:
A: cingulum;
B: connective component between the cingulum and the sheath;
C: pair of lower rings as always without any connection.
more abundant. It is worth taking these into consideration
as they use very similar construction technology to the
pugiones. One of the most well known of these is a
find from the island of Delos which can be associated
with conflicts with pirates in 69 B.C.77 and some of the
construction details of this sheath are very clear. The front
of a sheath from Giubiasco is equally as revealing, made
with the same technology as that of the pugio of Titelberg
(chapter 9, exemplar 216), dating between 30 and 12 B.C.
This dating coincides with the moment of transitions from
type I to II, so even though this pugio is classified among
those belonging to type II regarding the blade and the
hilt, it has a sheath made with technology typical of the
previous type, which is worth noticing.
From an analysis of these finds we deduce that the sheath
from the archaic period was technologically rather simple;
its main part being a thin metal frame (fig. VI/8-component
no.3) with a cross-section roughly like a “U” which ran
all along the two sides, making up the framework of the
artefact. It was easy then to insert two wooden plates (fig.
VI/8-component no.2), most likely covered on the outside
in leather or another appropriate material, which made
up the “walls” of the sheath. Two metal bands (fig. VI/8components no.6 and 7). These were fixed on by means of
screws with metal rivets.
From this panorama of archaeological finds and funerary
monuments it is clear that the use of the four rings was wide
spread from the moment the pugio appeared, and it lasted
unaltered for all the time Romans soldiers were equipped
with it. This is a unique occurrence because even the gladi
made an exception to it. As time passed we see that they
underwent a substantial modification of their suspension
system and we see the arrival of the use of a baldric instead
of the cingulum. Also with the arrival of longer weapons,
such as the spathae, a suspension system reminiscent of
the Celtic one arrives on the scene. This does not happen
with the pugio, which always maintains the initial system
unaltered over time. Probably no other component of the
Romans weaponry remained so unaltered. We only have
to think of the many variations to the helmets, the armour,
and even the other components of the pugiones etc.
Not only did it survive time, but this system is also common
to practically all known exemplars with very few exceptions:
for example, the already mentioned pugio depicted on the
stele of Minucius Lorarius; and the exemplar found in
TItelberg-Luxemburg (Chap. 9, exemplar 216) complete with
sheath and kept in good condition, which has a suspension
system with only two rings of the Celtiberian “left diagonal”
type. As this is a weapon dating back to the Augustan Age,
most likely between 30 and 12 B.C.76 (note VI/6),. the most
believable hypothesis is that it was created by a Celtiberian
craftsman, or a craftsman connected with the construction
methodology of that culture but adapted to Romans needs
and, therefore, designed to be worn on the left.
All the sheaths ended at the bottom with a small button
whose round shape was useful to stop the soldier from being
wounded from the continual rubbing against his thighs.
Almost all these components are easy to see on the famous
stele of Minucius Lorarius, the only one to demonstrate
a type I pugio. Particularly clear are the metal frame and
the internal plates, whereas it is not clear if we are in the
presence of the classic two horizontal metal bands or of
binding in material in the Villanovian/Etruscan style.
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
Most information on the construction components of
the sheaths and the technology used to make them
come from the study of specimens found, even if some
useful contributions come from classical sources and
iconography.
The strange thing is that we find the same analogies in
them as we have just seen in the decorations. That is that
the specimens from Periods I and III use very similar
technologies, whereas those from Period II have a separate
one. Let us proceed in order.
We have already mentioned that there are only few
exemplars of sheaths from Period I brought to the attention
of experts, whereas those of contemporary gladi are slightly
76
77
78
A quotation from the VII century A.D. is worth
mentioning – so rather late and well after the moment of
the disappearance of the pugiones – and it clearly refers
to some construction methods: “so the Latins called it in
the same way with an appropriate term: pugio. From the
beginning it was artfully forged from the red hot entrails
of the earth, the rest of the material was derived from
wild bulls and it was shaped from the putrid carcasses of
goats”78: If the first part is rather clear – we have, in fact,
L. Venden Berghe& M. Simkins, “Construction and reconstruction of the Titelberg dagger”, J.R.M.E.S n. 12/13, 2001.
M. Bishop, “Romans Military Equipment, ed. Oxbow Books.
Aldhelmus Scireburnensis “Aenigmata - Cl. 1335, aenigma61, versus 1.
70
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
70
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VI - SHEATHS
Fig. VI/6: representation of the entire suspension system of an
imaginary pugio (from Period II):
1) cingulum 2) metal hook to connect the pugio to the cingulum 3)
binding with metallic and leather threads 4) pair of upper rings 5)
pair of lower rings.
Fig. VI/8: construction details of a sheath from the first period (for
reasons of graphic clarity the scale of the two sections is bigger than
that of the sheath):
1) weapon blade;
2) plates in wood or other organic material;
2) metal frame;
3) “binding” components connecting the sides lengthwise;
4) suspension component to connect sheath-to-rings;
5) rivets to fix components no.5;
6) suspension rings
previously seen that forging was well known and amply
used – it is more difficult to interpret the second, which
seems to refer to the hilt and perhaps also to the sheaths.
It could be understood that bulls horns were used as the
material for making a part of the grip, whereas possibly
details for the assembly of the hilt were taken from the
goats by maceration; or much more probably, the leather
for covering the sheath was made by using the animals’ skin
having stopped its putrefaction by tanning. However, these
attempts to interpret are hardly reliable as the information
we have is excessively poor, and it has not been possible
for the authors to find confirmation elsewhere.
We have seen that with the beginning of Period II the
sheaths radically changed in their exterior appearance, and
we can now add that at the same time also the construction
technology changed. The technique described above using
a frame seemed, in fact, to fall into complete disuse and
was replaced, in short, by joining two main half shells
together onto which all the other necessary components
were applied. The two parts were made in flat pieces of
wood of the desired size and shape and as the blade to be
contained by them. They were then stuck together with
glue and/or small nails and rivets were placed onto the
sides. These were then covered with thin metal laminas,
which protected the wooden parts below. They could only
be placed on the anterior or posterior side in contact with
the body, as we will see later on.
Fig. VI/9: construction detail of a sheath of Period II (for reasons
of graphic clarity the scale of the cross-section is bigger than that of
the sheath):
1)
blade;
2)
external metallic covering;
3)
fixture rivets for components no.5;
3 again) external decoration of components no.3;
4)
decorations;
5)
plates in wood or other organic material; In this case we are
in the presence of an exemplar of type “A” according to the
classification of I. Scott.
The techniques to make the laminas rich in symbolic and
apotropaic decorations were predominantly enamel, inlay
and Agemina, and we will now take a brief look at the
characteristics79:
Enamel: used since the remotest of ages, seems to have
originated within the Mycenaean culture towards the XV
century B.C.. It consists in the fusion of vitreous substances
directly onto the metal surfaces to be decorated, into small,
specially made spaces.
This substance was obtained mainly from the fusion of
silica (50%), lead oxide (35%) and potassium carbonate
(15%), thus creating a transparent and colourless product.
The colourations were obtained by adding metal oxides in
79
a percentage not superior to 2-3%. Once cooled, the fusion
became hard, transforming into coloured glass, which
was then ground into a powdery consistency. The final
stage was the application onto the metal. The Romanss
knew this technique well, but did not use it very often in
comparison with the Byzantine population, who were able
to produce objects of astonishing value in enamel.
Inlay and Agemina: this technique is possibly more remote
than the previous one. It originated in the Aegean in the II
millennium B.C. and there are mentions of it even in an
Following informations are from Claudio Guardino, “I metalli nel mondo antico”, ed. Laterza
71
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
71
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Fig. VI/12: construction detail of a sheath from Period III (for
reasons of graphic clarity the scale of the cross-section is bigger than
that of the sheath):
- blade;
- plates in wood or other organic material;
- metal frame;
- suspension component to connect the sheath to the rings;
- suspension rings
Fig. VI/10: example of decorations made with the Agemina technique
on the hand of a pugio embellished with thin silver laminas. Detail
“1” and “2” show this in detail. In number 2 the cavities, into which
the metal laminas are set, are quite visible. (photo by the author)
are in silver and two different Aemina techniques have
been used to create different patterns. The first was made
with a rather simple technique; first two small laminas
were cut out of the desired metal, not very thick (around
a few tens of millimetres), which were then folded over at
90° at regular intervals until they reached the necessary
length. Once this had been done, the two strips were
layed over each other in their zig-zag shape in order to
achieve a pattern of small diamonds placed in a row, and
they were soldered on by increasing the temperature and
hammering (fig. VI/11-technique “A”). Alternatively, it
was also possible to obtain them from a single, wider
lamina by removing them from solid with special tools for
hammering and cutting.
The second technique, instead, demonstrates the more
classic procedure. On the surface of the metal base special
grooves were obtained of the correct size and geometry
for the future decoration and compatible laminas. After
this the laminas were introduced into the grooves, again
using a small hammer and pointed utensils, and finally it
was all heated to make it hold solidly together (fig. VI/11technique “B”).
Fig. VI/11: technique “A” shows the various stages for creating the
decorative laminas visible on the weapon 10 – detail 1:
- creation of two very thin laminas;
- folding them at 90°;
- repeating the folding in sequence;
- entwining the two folded laminas;
- technique “B”, instead, shows the most common method for
Agemina: the creation of special grooves in the metal base
to be decorated, into which the decorative laminas are set by
hammering.
From a construction point of view the sheaths of the I
century (that is Period II) are subdivided by Ian R. Scott80
into two subgroups, called “A” and “B”. The former was
made up of a wooden nucleus covered by a metal plate
both on the front and back surfaces and folded over at the
edges to overlap over each other.
They are without bulges on the sides to hold the suspension
rings, which seem to be fixed directly onto the front metal
plate by two or three rivets.
Type “B” sheaths, however, only consist in the front
plate which is fixed onto that which would otherwise be
a simple wooden covering. This plate is not folded over
at the edges so it appears practically flat. Normally there
are small components sticking out at the sides for fixing
the suspension rings on; these are also an easy clue when
classifying a sheath as type “B”. Often archaeological
finds are limited only to the metal plate, because the
organic components have decayed away.
extract of the Iliad. It consists of inserting materials, such
as pietre dure, coral and precious metals into special spaces
on a metal surface. If pietre dure, precious stones, corals
or other similar materials are used then we are using the
inlay technique; if, instead, metals are used, we are using
Agemina. The thin metal laminas were affixed cold within
the special grooves by delicate hammering. Numerous
finds of furniture and vases in Pompei and Herculaneum,
all of high quality, are proof of the Romanss’ taste for this
technique and also their ability.
In the Romans pugiones of Period II these two techniques
were both widely used, often together, and as a general
rule, Agemina was used to create symbols, whereas
enamel and inlay were to ornate the heads of the rivets,
often present both on the sheaths and the hilts.
In order to understand better the Agemina technique, which
can be found more frequently on pugiones, let us take as
an example the one visible in fig. VI/10. The decorations
80
Ian. R. Scott, “First century military daggers and the manufacture and supply of weapons for the Romans army” B.A.R. n. 275, 1985.
72
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
72
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VI - SHEATHS
So after the turning point seen above we come to the
advent of the Flavian dynasty, and hence the appearance
of the pugio type III and its return to Republican simplicity
and plainness. Curiously, the construction technology
follows exactly the same path, and so the technique of
the frame reappears, applied in a very similar way to the
Republican one. The only differences we can report, which
nevertheless appear to be of secondary importance, are that
the metal elements are applied lengthwise (components
no.4 in fig. VI/12) and do not overlap – they remain
distinct from the frame even if they form a single shape
with it - and the button at the bottom end now appears
usually smaller and in a vaguely half-sphere shape. For
the rest, everything remains substantially the same. As the
weapons are without decoration, there is no use of any
inlay or Agemina.
CHRONOLOGY
In this phase our attention will obviously be concentrated
only on sheaths, having treated the dating of blades and
hilts in chapter I.
As regards the exemplars from Period I, their birth, like
the blade they had to contain, occurred indistinctly over
time, beginning at the end of the II century B.C. During
the whole period in which they were in use no significant
variations have been found which permit more precise
dating; this is also due to the already mentioned scarcity of
surviving exemplars.
Better defined is the moment in which they begin to fall
into disuse and leave their place to those of Period II which
- thanks to the great abundance of finds which can be dated
with a good degree of certainty - allows us to study in
detail the exemplars which are placed here. The writings
of Scott (op cit) are of great help to us here, which we will,
therefore, follow with great attention from now on.
We must immediately point out that within this second
group, the first to appear are the exemplars of type “A”,
which precede those of type “B” by several decades. We
have also seen that the moment in which the transition
from type I occurs is during the reign of Augustus, and we
have precious proof of this in the sheath of an exemplar
from Titelberg. However, it is useful now to also cite an
exemplar found in Haltern, dated from 10 B.C. to 9 A.D.,
which was also made with the same “frame” technique.
These two exemplars, created with the technique
typical of Period I, overlap in time with those which are
probably the most archaic exemplars of Period II (type
“A”): an exemplar from Oberaden and another from
Dangstetten. The first is dated between 11 and 7 B.C., as
the Romans presence was concentrated there during those
years, whereas the period of occupation of the camp of
Dangstetten could be placed between 15 and 10 B.C. The
co-presence of these exemplars of different types during
the same period, together with the absence of either during
both the previous and following periods, confirms the
beginning of the Augustan reign (approximately 15 B.C.)
as the transition moment from one type to another and the
appearance of subtype “A”. The latter ended during the
reign of Claudius (approximately 50 A.D.), as there is
practically no evidence of exemplars after this period.
The oldest sheath of type “B” seems to be the one
originating in Velsen, certainly dating back to the reign
of Tiberius (14-37 A.D.), as well as from Kempten and
Aurerbeg, dating between the end of the reign of Tiberius
and the beginning of Claudius’ reign. This type of sheath
continues until it is gradually substituted by the those of
Period III, which we see occurring in the final part of the I
century, under Flavius’ reign.
Fig. VI/13: sheaths comparing the three periods. From the left to
the right:
- sheath from Period I (digital reconstruction based on authentic
find)
- sheath from Period II (Landesmuseum, Mainz- Germany). This
exemplar clearly shows the lack of metal frame, substituted with a
wooden structure with two valves and the metallic lamina on top,
as well as the décor in Agemina and enamel. It appears to be type
“A” according to the classification of I: Scott.
- Sheath from Period III (museum of Munchen – Haltern). Only the
metal frame has survived, whereas the organic part has been lost.
- Note the similar construction of the first and third, which are
both based on the use of a metal frame, completely absent in the
second.
Also the decorations can be a valuable aid in dating the
sheaths from Period II.
In type “A” sheaths we find brass used for the inlays, or
more generally alloys of a yellow colour; whereas for
those of type “B”, silver is more widespread.
As far as type “A” decorations are concerned, they can be
subdivided into three subgroups:
- type “A-1”: sheaths belonging to this subgroup are
decorated with brass and enamels. The most frequent
symbols used are the Sun, laurel leaves in the shape of a
crown (often closed by concentric circles) and the lines
on the edges by palm leaves and peltae.
They may be placed between the beginning of the
reign of Augustus and that of Claudius (approximately
between 15 B.C. and 50 A.D.). Whenever sheaths of this
type were found together with blades, the latter did not
have inlays on the hilts.
- type “A2” (or “Allériot type according to Scott’s
classification): prefers the use of silver and enamels for
decoration, with symbols similar to the previous group,
even if there are a small amount of exceptions. It can
be chronologically dated to during Claudius’ reign. The
blades found together with these sheaths normally have
hilts with inlays in the same way.
- type “A3”: these are decorated with brass and silver
without the use of enamels, and the absence of the
latter is their specific characteristic, united to the fact
that they have an analogous symbology to those of type
“B” sheaths of the later period, as we will soon see, and
which can be mainly identified with temples, palms,
diamonds inside squares. They can be dated back to
Nero’s reign and possibly later still.
73
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
73
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Graph VI/1: schematic representations of the chronology of the sheaths, with particular reference to Period II (I century). The latter has been
done according to the classification proposed by I. Scott. The three “A” types are presented in red, whereas the “B” types are in blue.
Also the “B” types are subdivided by Scott into three
subgroups:
- “B1”: have the some of the same characteristics found in
types “A”, such as the use of silver and enamels – often
red – for decorations, with symbols in the form of laurel
leaves both in circular shapes and as lines on the edges,
and Suns with varying shapes and numbers of rays.
Chronologically they are placed during the reigns of
Tiberius and Claudius.
- type “B2”: are characterised by the recurrent use of a
décor in silver infrequently used in the previous types,
mainly temples and palms, with a modest number of
diamonds. They can be dated to the period of Nero and
also a little beyond.
- type “B3”: generally have abstract designs, which are
difficult to classify from a symbolic point of view, made
with silver inlays. No blades appear to have ever been
found together with this type of sheath, and this makes
their chronological placing more difficult. Scott believes
that they are, however, among the later types, possibly to
be placed in the late Neronian period or later still.
Another contrast with Edit B. Thomas’ report82, which
frequently refers to G. Ulbert’s thesis83, dates an exemplar
coming from Oberammergau (chap. IX exemplar no. 192)
at the beginning of the I century. This is incompatible with
Scott’s classification, which would consider it type “B”,
that is from 25-30 A.D. onwards.
TABLE VI / 2
I
Period
single
82
83
A1
A2
●
●
enamel
●
B2
B3
●
●
single
●
●
●
●
symbols
enamel
●
●
●
●
Sun
●
●
●
laurel
●
●
●
Palm
●
●
Pelta
●
●
●
●
Temple
●
●
Rhombus
●
●
abstract
●
construction techniques
frame
●
Front plate
●
●
Front &
back plate
●
●
●
●
●
Tab. VI/2: Table of the main characteristics of the sheaths of pugiones.
For type II (I century) we have based our information on I. Scott’s
classification.
74
74
B1
●
silver
Herbert Westphal, “Ein Römisher Prunkdolch aus Haltern”.
Edit B. Thomas, “Helme, schield, dolche, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.
Ulbert G.,”Straubing und Nydam zu romischn Langschwertern der spaten Limeszeit”, Munich 1974.
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
A3
material of the decorations
brass
We find that the categorisation proposed by Scott
regarding all the construction characteristics and the sheath
decorations of type II are not accepted by all experts. This
is not only due to difficulty in understanding some of the
exemplars in one of the subgroups, but also due to the lack
of chronological coincidence of some pugiones where the
dating is certain.
For example, in Herbert Westphal’s study81 of some
pugiones coming from Haltern (Germany) there seems
to be some information which is not in accordance with
Scott’s classification. The author particularly lingers on
some exemplars coming from a camp from the Augustan
Age which, however, cannot be classified as type “A1”, as
they should be according to Scott’s classification, because
they have decorations in silver and not in brass (or tending
towards yellow), and also because the hilts are decorated,
which is not foreseen by Scott’s classification.
81
III
Period
II Period
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VII
ICONOGRAPHICAL SOURCES
The figurative reproduction of weapons in Rome had the
effect of representing and exalting the social status of the
commissioner of the reproduction and his Gens, whether
the soldier’s personal panoply was depicted or weapons he
had conquered from the enemy; the latter demonstrating
the power consequential to victory. In this tradition
can be included sepulchral stelae, sarcophaguses, great
monuments (where the depiction of weapons took on the
cause of political propaganda), and the numerous public
and private architectonic structures decorated with friezes
of weapons.
The weapons depicted could have both a symbolic and real
value. In fact, whereas the armament of barbarians was
represented both realistically and ideally (in this case the
depiction of gladiator weapons was frequent), those of the
Roman soldiers on their funerary monuments acquired the
function of portraying the deceased in all his panoply in
the most realistic way possible1. For this reason the study
of iconographical sources, which we will now go on to do,
represents one of the greatest sources of information on
legionary weapons and consequently the pugio2.
Fig. VII/1: Temporal distribution of 120 military stelae, of known
dating. For simplification, the stelae dating between two centuries
have been placed in the column of the previous century. The blue
lines represent the total number of stelae, whereas the red lines are
the chronological distribution of the 29 stelae in which the pugio is
depicted. (drawing by the author).
on the ability of the stone cutters who were attached to a
particular corps of the army than on who commissioned
the work3. A further limit to our observations derives
from the typology of the representation. This is because
after the I century A.D. images of soldiers reflected less
increasingly war characteristics and preference was given
to civil clothing4. In fact, after the first period, when
exaltation of the individual and the concept of heroism
were given precedence, a historical phase followed which
concentrated on the individual who hoped for resurrection,
and the custom of burials. It was typical during this second
phase to use sarcophaguses with frequent symbolic and
allegorical images, among which is the representation of a
deceased man5 lying inclined at a banquet on the kline6.
Returning to the stelae: the representation of the soldier
in military habitus7 was a means to show the observer the
value of the gens which the deceased belonged to, and the
degree of wealth they had achieved. As Paul Zanker states,
this was not only relevant to high social ranks, but also
great importance was placed on the vast middle classes,
which simple soldiers and petty officers belonged to.
Funerary stelae
The stelae, when they were designed in a very realistic
and detailed manner, help us to guess the armed corps
which the soldier belonged to, his rank, and the type of
equipment soldiers might have had, precisely dated, as
well as allowing us to obtain information regarding the
shape of the weapons and how they were worn.
The greatest limit to our particular investigation is that our
analysis is concentrated on only the number of funerary
monuments we have examined, which are only a small
fraction of those that were actually made. In fact, many
monuments have been lost and of those surviving not all
are the object of public study and the depictions are not
always complete or clear (sometimes the poor clarity is
due to the photographic reproduction of a stela which
was not possible to study from life). There is also the
quality of the fabrication of stelae which depended more
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Eugenio Polito, “Fulgentifus armis, introduzione allo studio dei fregi d’armi antichi”, ed. L’Erma di Bretschneider;
The Roman people attributed great importance to the burial of their dead because the destiny of the soul was the responsibility of its relatives and
friends and, whenever these were lacking, the State. The soul of the dead person, which was seen as a divine essence, would remain wandering on
the earth without finding peace and distressing the living if the body remained unburied. For this reason the soldier set aside a part of his wages for
the entire length of his service, the so-called “funeraticium”, for a funerary society managed by the Centuria. This small tax was indispensable in
order to assure the soldier a decent burial after his death (Vegetius, “The art of Roman War”, book II, Chap. XX). In order to offer the dead person an
appropriate dwelling place even high sums were invested. It has been estimated that for the making of this dwelling place a sum of money equal to
half or even the whole yearly wage of an official of the imperial guard could have been invested, to which the cost of transport had to be added. The
cost, certainly high, was not necessarily proportional to the degree of wealth of the dead person, but rather to his desire to invest in his final dwelling
place, as P. Zanker and B. Chr. Ewald state in “Mit Mythen leben, die Bilderwelt der romischen Sarkophage”, Munchen 2004, p. 24, for which reason
it was much more widely spread than the mere circle of senatorial aristocracy. We have included a table on the costs of funerary monuments collected
from the research carried out by Duncan Jones, “The Economy”:
period
Soldier
Cost of the monument
Annual wage (about)
end I cent.
A.D.Praetorian (Cisalpina)
5000 sesterces
3000 sesterces
beginning II cent.
A.D.Praetorian (emiliano)
2000 sesterces
4000 sestercesbeginning
II cent. A.D.
Praetorian (Piquentum)
4000 sesterces
4000 sesterces
Fist half III cent. A.D.
Optio (Aquileia)
10.000 denarii
7500 denarii
Sergio Rinaldi Tufi, “Militari romani sul Reno”, ed. G. Bretschneider.
Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, “Roma: la fine dell’arte antica”, ed. BUR.
M. Torelli, M. Menichetti e G. Grassigli, “Arte e archeologia del mondo romano” , ed. Longanesi. “Vivere con i miti, iconografia dei sarcofagi
romani”, ed. Bollati Boringhieri;
the “Kline” was the convivial bed;
Latin translation of the term “suit”;
75
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
75
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
I cent. B.C.
I cent. A.D.
36 soldiers
0
13 n.c. officers
1centurion
with P.
9
6 with P.
3 centurions
1 centurion P.
1 Optio
16 soldiers
0
3
7 with P.
1 n.c. officers
0
1 Centurion
III cent. A.D.
No date
N° Stelae with
Pugio
7
9
6 infantrymen
(16,6%)
1 Centurion
3 Centurions
2 Optiones
2 Officers
2 centurions
(25%)
0
1
1 with P
3
1 with P
9 soldiers
(56%)
0
0
0
0
2
1
16
0
1 Optio
0
0
0
II cent.
A.D.
Legionary Infantrymen
5
Auxiliary Infantrymen
unidentifyed infantrymen
22 soldiers
0
3
2 n.c. officers
0
1 centurion
Praetorians
10 soldiers
0
2
1 with P.
2
1 with P.
2
5
2 soldiers
(20%)
1 Tribune
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
38
1 (?)
(1,3%)
1
6
1 with P.
6 Standardbearers
(46,1%)
0
1
0 musicians
0
2
0 navy soldiers
0
0
1 quartermaster
Cavalry
75 cavalry men
0
10
1 with P.
22
Standardbearers
13 Standardbearers
0
6
5 with P.
0
Musicians
3 Musicians
0
1
1
Navy
4 navy soldiers
0
2
0
1 quartermaster
with P.
0
other
0
Table VII/1: summary of the stelae, marked by the various military corps. The subdivision is based on dating (when known) and if there is a
representation of the pugio (marked with the letter “p”). The percentages in the column “N stelae with pugio” refers to the number of soldiers
who were wearing the weapon, for example 6 infantrymen out of 36, referring, therefore, to the line in which this figure is found.
CORPS
Legionary
infantrymen
weapon
%
No date
Gladius
63,7%
6
1 centurion
1 officer,1 optio
Gladius/Pugio
36,3%
Gladius
20%
Gladio/Pugio
Auxiliary
infantrymen
Not defined
infantrymen
Praetorians
Standard bearers
Gladius
III A.D.
2
1 centurion
2
1 officer
4
7
1 centurion
80%
7
1
100%
8
2
1 centurion
2
1
0%
66,7%
Gladius/Pugio
33,3%
Gladius
53,9%
Gladius/Pugio
46,1%
quartermaster
II A.D.
1
Gladius
navy
1
I A.D.
1
Gladius/Pugio
Cavalry
I B.C.
spatha
100%
spatha/Pugio
0%(?)
Gladio
100%
Gladio/Pugio
0%
Gladius
0%
Pugio
100%
1
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
6
9
9
1 (?)
2
1
Table VII/2: this shows a comparison of the percentages between stelae depicting only a gladius and those with both a gladius and pugio. The
subdivision is based on dates (when known).
76
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
76
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VII - ICONOGRAPHICAL SOURCES
Fig. VII/2: from the left: detail of sword from the monument to the
Tetrarchs in Venice (end III century – beginning IV century); detail
of the stela of an unknownn Roman official (Rome), with a sword
also on his left side. The latter was a mystical weapon rather than
from the every day life of a Roman official, and it symbolised power.
(from “Roman Military Equipment: from the Punic war to the fall of
Rome, M. Bishop & J. Coulston).
The iconographic choice to represent the milites8 with
numerous details of their weapons, clothing, the ranks
and offices they held was the consequence and evolution
of Greek and Etruscan influence. The funeral of Patrocius,
described in the Iliad, certainly served as a reference
point for the exaltation of honour and military valour,
whereas from the Etruscans the proud representation of
the self and the deceased’s privileges was assimilated.
The monument, therefore, became a eulogy of the
deceased’s valour and “a means of social elevation, a
source of distinction and prestige, in the knowledge of
belonging to a fundamental component for the function
and preservation of the State”.9
The data which emerges from an examination of 220
military stelae, however, is not always complete because
at times the monuments appear fragmentary or unclear, or
because they are frequently out of context. If we observe
the temporal distribution of various stelae whose dating is
known (120 exemplars), we see that 64.1% of the total (77
stelae) belongs to the I century A.D., whereas among those
with a representation of a pugio only 29 out of 41 stelae
(18.63 % of the total) can be dated to a sufficiently reliable
chronological date, and 86.2% of these (25 stelae) belong
to the I century A.D.
The reason why the greatest concentration of stelae is
ascribable to the I century A.D. is that cremation, for which
stelae were used, was the most popular rite from the II
century B.C. until the first Imperial Age. Burials during this
period were reserved for the poor and slaves who were often
buried in the plebeian cemeteries (Pliny N.H., VII, 187).
From the beginning of the II century A.D. the use of
burials progressively began to spread and hence so did
the use of sarcophaguses. This occurred first among the
leading classes and then, more slowly, among the inferior
classes (with the exception of the emperors, who continued
to be cremated), giving progressively rise to the concept of
“internalization of the funerary cult”, as defined by Paul
Zanker (op. cit.).
8
9
Fig. VII/3: on the top: detail of the stela of Flavius Bassus,
cavalryman of the Ala Noricum, dating back to the high Empire. On
the bottom: detail of the stela of Publius Marcius Probus, custodies
armorum, I century A.D. (from “Roman Military Equipment: from
the Punic war to the fall of Rome, M. Bishop & J. Coulston).
With this custom it was no longer necessary to show off
the deceased’s social status to the passer-by with an image
of himself. This was because this new culture favoured
the idea that the deceased was the inhabitant of the tomb,
which was understood as a house for the dead, thus
justifying the channels by which the relatives introduced
the libation for the deceased on anniversaries. With the
spread of Christian culture, the tomb lost importance as
it became just a provisional home while waiting for true
eternal life.
After the III century A.D., only burial was common, used
also by the emperors, as the oriental religions (Judaism
and Christianity) forbade cremation, with the consequence
that the funerary stelae, stones, crematory rites and all,
ceased to exist.
This fact allows us to understand how the study of stelae
has a great importance for the study of the military habitus
latin term meaning “soldiers”;
Claudio Franzoni, “Habitus atque habitudo militis”, ed. l’Erma di Bretschneider.
77
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
77
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Appendix I: list of the stelae where the presence of the pugio can be traced from authors, supplied with information which
is considered useful. In all cases the gladius is also present, and is, therefore, an unmentioned established fact.
stela
1
2
3
name
rank
spot
Auxiliary infantyman, Cohort
Delmatarum
Germania superior
Bingen
First half I cent.
A.D.
Belt with plates, 4 suspension rings, the
sheath shows only two. Co-presence of 2
hastae, shield, tessear , sagum.
Attio L(i?)ani
Auxiliary infantyman cohorts
Raetorum
Germania superior
Magonza
unknownn
Lost stela (only a print remains). Copresence of paenula, 2 hastae, shield.
(Algeria) Mauretania
Cherchel
I cent. A.D.
Co-presence of 2 hastae, sagum
Dalmatia
I cent. A.D.
Claudian age
Soldier is wearing a sagum
Pannonia inferior
Late I cent. A.C.
Co-presence of 2 hastae, shield , lorica
half I cent. A.D.
5
Caius Castricius
Victor
6
Caius Faltonius
Centundus
Legionary infantryman
Legio XXII Primigenia
Germania superior
Moguntiacum,
7
Caius Valerius
Centundus
Standard bearer Legio XIIII
Gemina Martia Victrix
Germania superior
Moguntiacum,
8
Caius Valerius
Valens
Legionary infantryman
Legio VIII Augusta
Acaia, Greece
Firmidius Rufus
Praetorian
Cohort VI pretoria
Aquileia
Firmus
Auxiliary infantryman
Cohors Raetorum
Germania Superior
Antunnacum,
Gaius Ottiedius
Attianus
Praetorian Cohors Praetoria
Assisi, Italy
Genialis
Standard bearer
Cohors VII Raetorum
Germania superior
Moguntiacum,
Hyperanor
Auxiliary infantryman Cohors
I Sagittarior.
Germania Superior
Bingen-Bingerbrück,
Licaius
Auxiliary infantryman Cohors
Pannorium
Germania superior
Wiesbaden
15
Lucius Sertorius
Firmus
Aquilifer
Curator veteranorum Legio XI
Claudia
Verona, Italy
16
Marcus Favonius
Facilis
Centurion
Legio XX Valeria Victrix
Colchester
Castle (UK)
17
Marcus Lucillius
Germanus
Standar bearer
Legio II Adiutrix
Alexandria, Egypt
18
Minucius
Lorarius
Centurion
Legio Martia
Padova (Italy)
Pintaius
Standard bearer
Cohors V Asturum
Germania Inferior
9
10
11
12
13
14
19
20
note
Annaius
Daverzus
Auxiliary infantyman Cohort
Delmatarum
Auxiliary infantryman
IIII Cohort
Legionary infantryman
Legio II Adiutrix
4
period
Balaterus
Bato Dasantis
Legionary infantryman Legio
Publius
Flavoleius Cordus XIIII Gemina Martia Victrix
Germania superior
Moguntiacum,
Wearing a Paenula. Note the presence of
2 slaves at his sides
The soldier is wearing a bearskin and is
equipped with a shield. In his right hand
70 A.D.
he is clasping the “signum”. Note the 4
suspension rings.
I cent. A.D.
Co-presence of Codex ansatus and Vitis.
45-70
The soldier is wearing a paenula.
Stela without an effigy of the deceased,
I cent. A.D.
showing a pugio, a gladius, a pilum (?), a
helmet and a shield separately.
Stela rich in details, shows a pugio in
a sheath with 2 suns and 4 suspension
I cent. A.D.
rings very clearly. The soldier, wearing a
sagum, has 2 slaves at his sides.
Stela without an effigy of the deceased,
shows a pugio, a gladius, a helmet and
a Codex ansatus separately. The quality
III cent. A.D.
of the work is not the best and does not
allow a great amount of details to be
discerned.
High quality representation, rich in
detail. It shows a pugio with decorated
second half I
sheath. The soldier is wearing a lorica
cent. A.D.
hamata, with a bear skin on top. In his
right hand he is clasping an “imago”, in
the left a role of papyrus.
Excellent depiction of decorated pugio
sheath, on which we can see 2 suns and 4
I cent. A.D.
suspension rings. The soldier is wearing
a sagum.
A cingulum with plates and an apron is
I cent. A.D.
depicted in great detail. The soldier is
Flavian age
wearing a sagum.
High quality stela showing a cingum
plates and a lorica squamata. The
I cent. A.D. first with
even if scarcely visible, is on the
half claudian age pugio,
right side of the soldier, who is holding a
standard with an eagle in his right hand.
Pugio on the right hanging from a thin
cingulum and apparently not decorated.
I cent?
Co-presence of panoply in Greek style,
witth armour in muscolata and greaves
The soldier is wearing a Paenula, holding
a standard in his right hand.
Only known stela with visible pugio
around 43 BC
from Style I. The soldier is wearing a
sagum.
Pugio carried on the right with 4 clear
rings. The soldier is wearing
beginning I cent. suspension
a lorica hamata with a wild skin over
A.D.
it, holding a standard with an eagle in
his hand
Pugio very clearly depicted without
decorations visible either on the handle
I cent. A.D.
on the sheath, with 4 suspension rings.
43 A.D. (death) or
Co-presence of shield and two roles in
the left hand
78
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
78
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VII - ICONOGRAPHICAL SOURCES
21
Publius Marcius
Probus
quartermaster
Bergamo, Italy
I cent. A.D.
22
Quintus Luccius
Faustus
Standard bearer
Legio XIIII Gemina Martia
Victrix
Germania superior,
Moguntiacum,
I cent. A.D.
70-92 A.D.
23
Quintus Petilius
Centundus
Legionary infantryman Legio
XV Primigenia
Germania superior,
Magonza
I cent. A.D.
+ 40 A.D.
Respectus
Auxiliary cavalryman,
exploratory
Pannonia superior
Heidelberg
end II beginning
III cent A.D.
Rufus Lucilius
Pannonia
superior,Carnuntum,
Germania Superior,
Bingen-Bingerbrück,
I cent. A.D.
39-44
Verona, Italy
inizio III cent
A.D. ?
Udine, Italy
First half I cent.
A.D.
24
25
26
Tiberius Iulius
Abdes Pantera
Legionary infantryman Legio
XV Apollinaris
Auxiliary infantryman Cohors
I Sagittariorum
27
Titus Aelius
Victor
Auxiliary infantryman
28
Unknownn
soldier
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Unknown soldier
Unknown soldier
I cent. A.D.
Germania superior,
Mogontiacum
Germania Inferior
Augusta Treverorum,
Unknown soldier
Germania superior,
Moguntiacum,
second half I
cent. A.D.
Unknown soldier
Germania inferior
Ara Agrippinensium,
half I cent. A.D.
Unknown soldier
Germania superior
Moguntiacum,
Unknown soldier
Germania superior
Moguntiacum,
Unknown soldier
Germania superior
Andernach
Unknown soldier
Germania superior
Andernach
Unknown soldier
Germania superior
Coblenza
Unknown soldier
Germania superior
Gustavsburg
Unknown soldier
Germania inferior
Bonn
Unknown soldier
Germania inferior
Bonn
Unknown soldier
Germania inferior
Bonn
second half I
cent. A.D.
The weapons of the soldier are not
worn but scattered within the work.
Co-presence of elements from a panoply
in Greek style, such as a Boeotian type
of helmet and a lorica musculata. The
soldier has a Codex ansatus in his hand.
The pugio can only be guessed at due
to the low quality of its depiction. Copresence of signum, shield and wild skin.
Co-presence of pilum held in right hand.
The soldier is wearing a paenula.
On the right side a short weapon can be
noticed which could be a semispatha or a
spatha, now in a deteriorated state. Even
if not probable, it is also possible that it
is a pugio.
Bad state of preservation and low quality
image. The soldier is wearing a paenula.
Pugio worn on a cingulum over that of
the gladius.
The presence of the pugio is, however,
doubtful due to the low quality of the
image, which could be a semispatha.
Pugio handing from a cingulum with
plates, beneath that of the gladius, with
4 suspension rings.
Fragmented stela, pugio sensed on the
right side. Co-presence of pilum
presence of pugio very doubtful, however,
if present it is on the right side.
Pugio well depicted hanging from the
left side froma cingulum beneath that of
the gladius. Sheath with 3 or 4 flowers
(vine leaves).
Two parallel cingula. Co-presence of
pilum.
Pugio well depicted, hanging from a
cingulum over that of the gladius, in
a sheath which depicts 2 rosettes and
4 suspension rings. Co-presence of 2
spears.
Very clear image of the pugio with
sheath with 4 suspension rings. The
soldier is wearing a paenula and is
holding a tessera in his right hand.
Pugio well depicted hanging from the
left side from a cingulum beneath that
of the gladius. Co-presence of lorica
hamata and perhaps a shield behind the
soldier.
Fragmented stela, showing a pugio on
the right side. The soldier is wearing a
lorica hamata on top of a sagum, holding
2 spears in his right hand.
Pugio hanging on left side from a
cingulum over that of the gladius. This
soldier is wearing a lorica hamata on top
of a sagum.
Pugio hanging on left side from a
cingulum over that of the gladius. This
soldier is wearing a lorica hamata on top
of a sagum.
Showing a pugio on the right side, which
could, however, be a badly-depicted
gladius. The soldier is wearing a lorica
hamata over a sagum and is clasping a
spear in his right hand.
Pugio, hanging on left side from a
cingulum beneath that of the gladius.
The soldier is wearing a lorica hamata
over a sagum, and is holding a pilum.
Gladius and pugio not visible as they
are half hidden by the paenula, worn in
a rather high position (from “Militari sul
Reno” by S. Rinaldi Tufi).
Table 5: table in which all the stelae are recorded in which it has been possible to trace the authors where the presence of the pugio has been noted,
with relative information considered useful. In all cases the gladius is co-present, and is, therefore, to be considered as an established fact.
79
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
79
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
stela
nome
luogo
42
Aprilius Lecterus
Rhaidestos, Turkey
43
Aurelius Mucianus
Apamea, Syria
44
Aurelius Sabius
Nikopolis, Egypt
45
Aurelius Sudecentzus
Aquileia, Italy
46
Caecilius Avitus
Chester / Deva, Britannia
47
Caius Castricius Victor
Pannonia inferior
48
Caius Monnenius Secundus
Roma, Italy
49
Camomile
London, England
50
unknownn
Croy Hill (Caledonia)
51
Flavinus
Corbridge / Corstopitum (Britannia)
52
Lucius Blattius vetus
53
Lucius Septimius Valerinus
Este, Italy
Rome, Italy
54
Lucius Sincio
Padova, Italy
55
Marcus Aurelius Alexys
Athens, Greece
56
Marcus Aurelius Sossius
57
Marcus Aurelius VItalynus
Aquileia, Italy
Rome, Italy
58
Valerius Quintus
Aquileia, Italy
59
Unknown
England
60
Unknown
Pannonia inferior
61
Unknown
Nikopolis, Egypt
62
Unknown
63
Unknown
Raetia/ Germany
Baths, England
64
Unknown
Pannonia
65
Unknown
Pannonia
66
Unknown
Tracia
67
Unknown
Aquincum, Pannonia Inferior
68
Unknown
69
Aelius Septimus
Italy, Este
Pannonia Superior (Komarom,
Hungary)
n.
Conventional name/place of finding
1
Portonaccio (Rome)
180 A.D.
2
Big Ludovisi (Rome)
III cent. A.D.
3
Small Ludovisi (Rome)
II cent. A.D.
4
Sarcophagus of Brescia
Battle on ships
(Monastery S. Giulia- Brescia)
Amendolara (Vigna Amendolara)
II cent. A.D.
5
6
Appendix II
Synthetic list of the stelae which
have been traced from authors,
which show a soldier clearly in
procintus, armed with a gladius
and often also a javelin, but without a pugio. We have only considered those belonging to legionary,
auxiliary and Praetorian infantry.
Appendix III
list of main sarcophaguses with
war scenes:
III cent. A.D.
7
Abbey of Farfa (Rieti)
end II cent. A.D.
8
Camposanto di Pisa (Pisa)
Beg. III cent. A.D.
80
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
80
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VII - ICONOGRAPHICAL SOURCES
Fig. VII/4: detail of the stelae of
(from the left):
- Minucius Lorarius, legionary of the
legio Martia (I century B:C.). Note
the detail of carrying the pugio on the
abdomen in a horizontal position;
- Annaius Daverzus, auxiliary of the
cohors IV Delmatarum (I century A.D.).
The soldier is wearing two cingula, one
for his gladius and the other for his
pugio, worn crossed over.
- Petilius Centundus, legionary of the
legio XV Primigenia (I century A.D.).
as in the previous stela, the soldier
is wearing two cingula, but both in
a horizontal position, one above the
other.
(from “Roman Military Equipment: from
the Punic war to the fall of Rome, M.
Bishop & J. Coulston)
of the naval corps or cavalry (with the only exception of a
dubious stelae) and only one for a Custus Armorum.
The stelae of the infantrymen include the greatest number
of representations of the pugio (out of 90 stelae, 19 show
the dagger, with a percentage of 21.1% of the total). It
is worth noticing that even if it was a weapon in the
possession of both Legionary and Auxiliary infantrymen, it
was statistically more frequently carved onto the stelae of
the Auxiliaries (56%) in comparison with the Legionaries
(16.6%). This difference is not explicable on the basis of
the difference between the two corps. In fact, even if the
Legionary soldiers were Roman citizens on a higher wage
to the Auxiliaries and also hierarchically superior, and the
Auxiliaries came from the Provinces, there was, however
no difference in their equipment, as has emerged from this
study and in the previous ones12.
for only the I-II centuries A.D. when these funerary
representations were very widespread; whereas they lose
importance outside this time span because their scarcity
means that they may not appropriately present the military
population of the time.
In order to simplify the study of stelae, we have used a
classification (table VII/1) with the appropriate military
corps, distinguishing them in infantrymen (subdivided
into legionary, auxiliary and undefined infantrymen when
the typology was not certain), cavalry, Praetorian corps,
standard bearers, musical corps, naval corps and so on.
In the stelae where the soldier is represented in procintus
(battle outfit), the offensive weapons depicted are the
gladius, the hastae, the pilum10, the bow and the pugio.
We have limited our comparison to the gladius and pugio
as these are most frequently depicted on the stelae, and
above-all because these weapons were very similar in
shape and function. In all the funerary finds the gladius
and the pugio are both present together, in fact, there is no
soldier where only a dagger is depicted; vice versa, there
are 28 where only the gladius or a spatha (23.3%) are
depicted without the presence of the dagger too.
In fact, there is no disparity between the shape of the gladi,
the pugiones, the cingula13, the tunics and the shields
(whose oval shape was used by both the Legionaries and
the Auxiliaries). Among the officers, only two stelae of
Legion centurions have their armour sculpted. As far as the
analysis of the stelae of officials is concerned, neither of
the two monuments examined shows evidence of a pugio,
and the explanation for this can be found in G. Waurick’s14
observation when he describes the creation of the stelae
in a provincial environment. The weapons and clothing of
simple soldiers are depicted realistically, whereas those
from superior ranks, who belonged to the cultivated urban
environment, often depicted “mythical” weapons – not
actually in use – right until the late Flavian Age, due to the
influence of the Hellenistic tradition.
From this analysis we can see how the gladius was
a fundamental weapon, whereas the pugio had a
complementary importance. This observation is confirmed
in a quotation by Tacitus11, where he narrates that in
situations of danger, the sentinels and the men had to be
armed during military service, and the arming of only
a pugio was punishable with death as not considered
sufficient.
In order to understand better what the true relationship was
between the soldiers in possession of a pugio within the
individual military corps, we have made a comparison by
examining the stelae depicting the gladius.
From this analysis it is possible to deduce that the pugio
is depicted in 36.3% of the stelae with the gladius of
the Legionary infantrymen, in 80% of the Auxiliary
infantrymen, in 33% of the Praetorians and in 46% of the
bearers. There are no pugiones to be seen among the milites
10
11
12
13
14
For this reason the stelae and the statues in general cannot
be of help in understanding if an official actually had or
did not have a pugio as part of his equipment.
An examination of the temporal distribution of the stelae
of the infantrymen confirms that almost all the monuments
with pugiones that can be dated (14 out of 17) belong to
the I century A.D. Exceptions to this are the stelae of
Spears and javelin;
Annales, Liber XI - cap. 18, par.3;
G.R. Watson, “The roman soldier”, ed. Bristol; Sergio Rinaldi Tufi, “Militari romani sul Reno”, ed. G. Bretschneider;
belts to hang and gladius and pugio;
Soldaten in der romischen Kunst”, British Archaeological Reports, 71, 1980;
81
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
81
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
pugio (the bad state of preservation of the tombstone does
not permit certainty in evaluation). However, there is no
stelae belonging to a cavalryman where we can identify a
dagger without an element of doubt.
The second unusual stela is that of Publius Marcius
Probus, weapons keeper, whose monument from the I
century A.D., was found in Bergamo (Italy). The soldier
is depicted with a paenula15, a stick made of vine, on the
right and a codex ansatus16 on the left; in the stela various
weapons are shown among which: a helmet, two shields
(one circular and one rectangular), a lorica musculata, a
spear (?) and a pugio attached to a belt with the apron17.
No soldier belonging to the naval fleet is depicted with a
dagger.
We also believe it is important to take a moment to look
at the positioning of the pugio and the gladius in the stelae
and their relationship with the cingulum18.
The cingulum was for a Roman soldier the military symbol
par excellence19, probably because it was the means by
which he carried his most important weapons, the gladius
and the pugio. We often find it depicted singly (supporting
only the gladius) or double (to carry both weapons) both
in the non-crossed-over form, but more frequently in the
crossed-over one. All the infantrymen carried their gladius
on the right and their pugio on the left, with the following
exceptions:
- Centurions: Marcus Favonius Facilis, centurion of the
Legio XX Valeria Victrix carries his gladius around
his neck with a baldric on the left and his pugio on the
right; Minucius Lorarius, centurion of the Legio Martia,
carries his pugio horizontally across the front, and his
gladius on the left.
- Standard Bearers: Lucius Sertorius Firmus, aquilifer of
the Legio XI Claudia, and Pintaius, bearer of the Cohort
V Asturum, carry their pugiones on the right. The other
4 bearers instead carry their pugio on their left, and their
gladius on the right.
Having examined 22 stelae, each of which features two
cingula, it appears that half the soldiers wear their gladius
hanging from the belt below, and the other half from the
one above. The only constant factor has been found in the
bearers because the pugio is always seen hanging from the
cingulum above.
Fig. VII/5: detail of the sarcophagus of Portonaccio, II A.D. (Museo
Nazionale Romano, Rome).
Minucius Lorarius, Centurion of the Legio Martia in 43
B.C., Titus Aelius Victor, auxiliary infantryman of the III
century A.D., and Gaius Ottedius Attianus, Praetorian of
the II century A.D.
The Praetorians were soldiers who, like the infantrymen,
were sometimes depicted with a pugio. They were an elite
of the army with the function of bodyguard to the Emperor
and were rarely used in true war action. The Praetorian
infantry were trained and equipped like the legionaries,
even if their clothing was much more decorated. Of 11
stelae of Praetorians, one of which belonged to a Tribune,
only two depicted a dagger, that is 20% of the total
infantrymen or 33% of the infantrymen who also depicted
the gladius, according to the stelae we have looked at.
The standardbearers are infantrymen who frequently
testify the presence of a pugio. Having examined 13 of
their stelae, 6 depicted a dagger (46.1%), independently
of whether they belonged to the Legions or the Cohorts,
whether they were aquiliferi like L. Sertorius Firmus,
image-bearers like Genialis or standarbearers.
Finally, there are two stelae which show the pugio
exceptionally in a military corps where normally it is
not typical to find one. The first belongs to Respectus, an
auxiliary scout of the cavalry, whose stela dates back to
the end of the II – beginning of the III century A.D. It was
found in Heidelberg (Germany) and depicts a soldier on
horseback with a shield, two hastae, and what could be a
15
16
17
18
19
Sarcophaguses, Monuments
and Friezes with War Scenes
- Sarcophaguses
Only about 20 examples are known where a sarcophagus
depicts a war scene. Certainly the high cost of manufacture
as well as religious reasons were a strong limitation for
their popularity. They are placed between the II and III
centuries A.D., more precisely from 170 onwards, time of
the reign of Marcus Aurelius, until around 200, the first
years of the reign of Septimius Severus, until the time of
the barbaric raids of the Quadians and the Marcomannians.
We can recognise two types of these: those with battle
scenes, and those whose style is similar to that of the
stelae. It is very probable that many commissioners of
the paenula was a large circular cloak, made from rather crude wool, always having a hood. It had usually wore against rain and cold during the
march;
handle-bag to carry documents;
typycol of the legioraies and made with leather decorated strips;
military belt, often richly decorated and valuable;
Svetonius, “Augustus” lib. XXIV;
82
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
82
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VII - ICONOGRAPHICAL SOURCES
Fig. VI/6: metopes from the
monument of Adamclisi, where
Dacian soldiers are depicted
who, by means of scythes,
struck the Roman soldiers
from above to below.
sarcophaguses with battle scenes belonged to the circle
of high officials20, above all those closest to the emperor,
and they manifest two main influences. The first is Greek,
where the fight between the forces regulating the cosmos
and the opposing forces is exalted (an example of this is
the sarcophagus of Brescia, which shows the episode in
the Iliad of the battle of Marathon against the Persians),
the second is official imperial art, where the acts of the
emperor are exalted.
Instead, the sarcophaguses which for some reason recall
the style of funerary stelae are commissioned by soldiers
belonging to inferior ranks21.
Close examination of the images and the individuals on the
décor highlights the absence of the pugio.
This is best explained by the historical period in which
they were widespread, which, as previously seen, easily
justifies the absence of this weapon.
which we can propose to support this observation, are the
following:
● The Dacians developed war weapons in the shape
of scythes to be held by one or two hands, which
represented the precursor to the medieval pike. This
new weapon induced the Roman soldiers to protect
themselves with reinforced helmets, in a type of combat
which excluded close confrontation;
● According to the account by Cassius Dio “Trajan then
took hold of the high ground which had been fortified,
and in those places discovered the weapons, the
captured war machines, as well as the banner which
had been taken from the temple of Fusco (that is under
Domitianus A/N)22. In another passage”(Decebalus)
after having been reached by the presence of Trajan,
throwing himself onto the ground and prostrating himself
in front of him, throwing his weapons onto the ground,
he accepted against his will to hand over the weapons,
the war machines and those who built them, and to hand
over the deserters, to demolish the fortresses …”23. It
can be inferred how the catapults were an important
point of strength, as their action was based on hitting an
object at a distance.
● In the war which conquered Dacia, the cavalry had
an important role, as the depiction of Trajan facing
his enemies by charging on his horse confirms. This
is found on the great frieze which was re-used on the
Arch of Constantine, and the frequent depictions of
horse riders on the Trajan Column. In fact, in the first
Dacian war, Roman tactics were concentrated on the
use of legions to besiege the mountainous fortresses,
and by the cavalry to ravage the county and break up the
logistics of the barbarians;
● During the second Dacian war, Decebalus invaded the
Moesian again with the aid of Sarmatian catafracts,
Iranian nomads, whose tactic was based on the ability
to collide with and break through the armoured cavalry
at a gallop.
- Monuments
The most important monuments which have war scenes
are the Trajan Column and the Trophaeum Traiani of
Adamclisi (Romania), symbols of the war which conquered
Dacia (101-106 A.D.) and the column of Marcus Aurelius,
which exalts the Roman victory over the Marcomannians;
Germanic-Sarmatic peoples from continental Europe, a
war which was fought from 167 to 188 A.D.
The way the individuals are made in these monuments is
very realistic and rich in details, but in none of them do we
find a depiction of the Pugio. Comparing the localities of
the archaeological findings of pugiones with the regions
where the wars celebrated on these sculptures took place
(fig.II/1), we can notice that there is no territorial overlap.
This means that a type of combat was used against the
Dacians and the Marcomannians in which the dagger was
not useful, underlining even more how the Pugio had a
specific military use against certain enemies and within a
context of well-defined war techniques. The hypotheses,
20
21
22
23
one of the most famous and fascinating is the so-called “sarcophagus from Portonaccio” (also mentioned in II chapter);
Paul Zanker e Bjorn Christian Ewald, “Vivere con i miti, l’iconografia dei sarcofagi romani”, ed. Bollati Boringhieri.
Dione Cassio, “Storia Romana” 68, 9.1
Dione Cassio, “Storia Romana” 68, 9.4
83
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
83
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
- Friezes with weapons
Decorations involving weapons were already very
widespread during the Republican Period and during all
the Imperial Age. Public monuments, mausoleums, great
sanctuaries and public squares were decorated with friezes
of arms, but it is always very difficult to reconstruct a
coherent picture of the arms actually used among those
depicted. In fact, as Eugenio Polito writes, the depiction
of arms in friezes “is not uniform proof nor equally
reliable for every period; to this one might add that the
traditional nature of ancient art is such that reality is often
covered by a uniform-making patina, which is, however,
deformed by frequent incoherencies”24. According to
present convictions, ancient artists preferred to create
arms on the friezes which were connected to tradition or
fruit of their imagination rather than using real ones which
corresponded to the historical context25.
The absence of an image of the pugio in the friezes
depicting weapons is, therefore, easily explained. Their
absence tends indirectly to exclude the attribution of a
symbolic value to the weapon, which certain quotations
would give credit to, and thus makes it an irrelevant
weapon for such depictions and rather an object for normal
military use.
As we have already noticed, the “Stehenden Soldaten”
from the stelae of the Rheine-Danubian limes are the
only direct iconographic source for the use of the Pugio
by Roman soldiers. We must point out that the lack of
its image on many reliefs which faithfully represent war
scenes must not be interpreted as incomplete information,
but considered equally useful in suggesting that in a
certain geographical and historical context the Roman
dagger was not used.
24
25
Eugenio Polito, “Fulgentibus armis, introduzione allo studio dei fregi d’armi antichi”. Ed. L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1998.
Eugenio Polito, “Fulgentibus armis, introduzione allo studio dei fregi d’armi antichi”. Ed. L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1998.
84
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
84
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VIII
CLASSICAL CITATIONS
In this chapter we will examine all the texts written in the
Latin language (excluding those in Greek) where the term
“pugio” appears, and all its declinations1. We will not only
give the english translation, but we will attempt to analyse
the texts in order to extract the greatest amount of data
possible from a statistic point of view.
Graph 1: number of citations over the various centuries, divided by
type. (drawing by the author).
Its description in a war context has only been found in four
citations:
- Virgil the Grammarian (Epitomae chap. 4);
- Tacitus (Historiae – Liber V chap. 29);
- S. Julius Frontinus – Stategemata – Book 2, chap, 7;
- Ammianus Marcellinus (Rerum gestarum libri qui
supersunt – Liber: 31, chap. 16).
This result appears strangely very wanting, considering
that it was a war weapon, supplied to military units.
However, there is a citation by Valerius Maximus from
the I century A.D. (Facta Memorabilia Libro 3, chap. 5)
where, in order to describe the abandonment of military
service on the part of a soldier, he cites that the soldier
placed his pugio on the wrap of the woman for whom he
had made this decision.
On the other hand, there are several mentions of the pugio
in the other two contexts: assassinations and suicides.
Five assassinations are described, the most noteworthy
being that of Julius Caesar, related by several Authors,
and that of Emperor Caracalla:
- Bellum Alexandrinum (Chap. 52);
- S. Julius Frontinus (Strategemata – Book.2, chap. 7);
- Julius Caesar and his conspirators in C. Sutenoius
Tranquillus (De vita caesarum Divus Iulis);
- Julius Caesar in Orosius (Historiarum adversum paganois
– books vii Cl. 0571, vol. II, book, 6, chap. 17);
- Emperor Caracalla in the Scriptores Histoirae Augustae
– Aelius Spartianus (XIII: Antoninus Caracallus – chap.
7);
- Julius Caesar in Iohannes Ximenius de Rada (Breuiarium
historie catholice – CM72B, book,8, chap. 101);
There are ten narrated suicides, five of which are relative
to Emperors (Nero, Otho and Julian) and five relative to
individuals of high rank:
- Emperor Otho in Tacitus (Historiae – Liber iI, chap.
49);
- A Praetorian in Tacitus (Annales – Liber IV – chap.
22);
- Emperor Nero in Tacitus (Annales – Liber XV, chap.
74);
- Onorius, a valiant soldier in Tacitus (Annales- Liber
XVI, chap. 15);
- Arria, wife of Cecina Peto, in C. Plinius Caecilius
Secundus (Epistulae – Liber:3, Epstula:16);
- Commander Brenno in M. Junianius Justinus (Epitomia
historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi – Lib:24,
chap.8);
From the I century B.C. until the XVI century A.D. the
term “pugio” can be found quoted by Authors of the Latin
language 145 times. Such a high number of citations
leads us to believe that this weapon was very important
in everyday life at the time. However, the long historical
period during which the pugio was quoted – covering
almost one and a half millenniums – highlights a great
dyscrasia with the period of practical use of this weapon:
in fact, we know that historically and archeologically its
use was witnessed from about the I century B.C. to mid
III century A.D., that is less than 400 years. In order to
understand this phenomenon better and understand the
right meaning which each citation had in the historical
period in which it was written, we have used a form of
classification.
On the basis of the type of narration, we have distinguished
the citations as “Historical Fact” when it related a real event
from the past in which the pugio acted as protagonist, and
“Symbolic or Religious Account” for all accounts where
the reference to the pugio is not a real fact but relative to
what it represented in the collective imagination. In this
final distinction we also find the Biblical stories which
occurred before the disappearance of the pugio: in these
cases murderous events are narrated with this weapon
which, for historical/geographical reasons, could certainly
not have been the true murder weapon. (see Graph 1).
Dividing the citations into the centuries in which they were
written we have noticed how the historical events tend to
prevail in an absolute sense until the III century A.D.:
in this way we find that the practical use of the weapon
and the quotation coincide. In the IV century A.D. the
first religious/symbolic citations appear, above-all in the
works of Saint Girolamo and Saint Augustine, and these
will subsequently tend to outweigh the historical accounts,
highlighting how they were typical of the later historical
period, that is when the pugio was no longer in use.
Analysing all the individual citations, we have tried to
find clues and explanations regarding the pugio from
the “Historical Events” (who wore one, how it was used
and what it was used for), whereas from the “Symbolic
and Religious Accounts” we have tried to understand
the meaning this particular weapon had acquired in the
collective imagination, to the point of being mentioned
even after the end of the Western Roman Empire.
Marcus Tullius Cicero was the first Author to have ever
cited the pugio, and most of his numerous citations are
connected with Caius Julius Caesar’s assassination.
Moving on to examine the citations where the pugio is
used for acts of violence, we can distinguish three distinct
situations: military use in war; assassination and suicide.
1
1 Search by “BREPOLiS – BREPOLS LATIN” by “Brepols Publisher”;
85
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
85
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
- Emperor Nero in Suetonius (De VIts Caesarum – Nero,
chap.49);
- Emperor Otho in Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum – Otho,
par.11);
- Emperor Julian in Aurelius Uictor (Libellus de uita et
moribus imperatorum breuiatus – Epitome de Caesaribus
– chap. 39);
- Commander Brenno in Iohannes Sarisberiensis
(Policraticus – tom.II, lib.6, chap.17).
The behaviour of emperors Nero and Otho is characteristic
when before their suicide they test the edge of the blade
of two pugiones in order to choose the weapon, as is the
custom of emperors Otho and Domitian when they keep
their weapon under their pillow.
Having analysed the body parts that are targeted for fatal
action, we have obtained the following distribution:
- neck: 64.28% (7 assassinations and 2 suicides)
- heart: 28.57% (4 suicides)
- side: 14.28% (1 assassination and 1 suicide)
- wrist: 7.14% (1 suicide)
The striking of genitals is narrated by religious Authors
in Biblical accounts of the killing of the Midianites by
Moses and his followers. As this fact occurred before the
development of the pugio, we can certainly exclude its
historical use, leaving only a symbolic meaning connected
to this dagger.
TOTAL
SUICIDES
MURDERS
Neck
9 (64,28%)
2
(22,2% of stabs
in the neck)
(25% of suicides)
7
(77,77% of stabs
in the neck)
(83,3% of suicides)
Chest
4(28,57%)
4
(100% of stabs
in the chest)
(50% of suicides)
0
Side
2(14,28%)
1
(50% of stabs
in the side)
(12,5% of suicides)
1
(50% of stabs
in the side)
(16,6% of murders)
Wrist
1(7,14%)
1
(100% cutting
of veins)
(12,5% of suicides)
0
qui supersunt – Liber: 31, chap.16, par.6);
12. Throat (Prudentius-Liber Cathemerinon Cl.1438,
hymnus.12, versus,113);
13. Inguine (Augustinus Hipponensis, Epistulae – Cl.0262,
Epist.185, vol.57,par.7);
14. Genitals (Pauca problesmata de enigmatibus ex tomis
canonicis Prefatio et libri de pentateucho Moysi (textus
longior) – De Numeris, par.444);
15. Neek (Petrus Damianus, Epistolae – Epp. Kaiserzeit
iV, 3, Epist.123);
16. Cutting off the head (Petrus Damian, Epistulae
– CLXXX vol.3, Epist.120);
17. Genitals (Petrus Damianus, Epistulae – CLXXX,
Vol.2, Epsit.61);
18. Genitals (Rupertus Tiutiensis, Commentarium in
Apocalypsim Iohannis apostolic – Lib.2, chap. (s.s.): 2);
19. Genitals (Rupertus Tuitiensis – De sancta trinitate et
operibus eius, CM 22, lib,17, In Numeros II);
20. Genitals (Philippus Haurengius – De oboedientia
– Chap.38);
21. Genitals (Thomas of Chobham – Summa de arte
praedicandi – Chap. 6)
Out of eight assassinations, seven (77.7% of the total)
are carried out using the neck as the target of the victim,
probably both to avoid the blade from finding obstacles
during penetration composed of possible parts of lorica
and above-all by the bone structure, and also in order to
obtain a definitively fatal action by cutting through the
vessels of the carotid artery and the jugular vein. We must
point out that the typical action of the pugio is not cutting
but penetration by its point, therefore, it is supposed that
the weapon was used not for cutting the throat (typical
action of a single-bladed knife) but to penetrate the base of
the neck in the jugular clefts. Only in one episode does the
assassin stab the victim in his side (16.6% of total cases).
Instead, the part of the body preferably used for suicides
is the heart (50%), with penetration of the blade through
the rib cage (an action which is very often assisted by a
servant as described by Tacitus – Annales – Liber XVI,
chap.15); the choice falls 25% of the times on the neck
and 12.5% on the side, and 12.5% by cutting the veins.
Characteristically, the narrated suicides all refer to the
historical period of I century A.D. In fact, during the reign
of Nero suicide was exalted as exitus illustirum virorum
(“the end of illustrious men”), which Tacitus, in Annales,
opposes, defining it as a useless martyrdom, contrary to
many wide-spread works.
The pugio, other than just being a weapon, was a symbol
of power. Galba (Suetonius – Galba XI) as soon as he
was appointed emperor, in order to face the journey wore
the “padulamentum”, the while or purple cloak typical
for generals during war, and hung his pugio around his
neck. The paludamentum was the symbol of the Imperium
which a Roman judge received from the Comitia Curiata
after having sworn oath at the Capitolium, accompanied
by the lictors, also clothed in paludamentum. With the
figure of Galba, the pugio worn so clearly would seem
to acquire the symbolic function of the life and death of
the lictorian classes. In Cassius Dionysius (LXIV 3.4) it
seems that the use of the pugio by Galba aroused much
derision. Another reference to the pugio as a symbol of
power is found in Tacitus (Historiae – Liber III, chap. 68).
In this citation, when Emperor Vitellius certified that he
no longer had the support of the soldiers and his people,
he attempted to abdicate by first delivering his pugio to his
consul, Gnaeus Caecilius Semplice, and then to the judges
1. Head and stomach (M. Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad
familiars – Lib.4, Epist.12, par,2);
2. Side (Seneca, De Clementia – Book 1, chap. 9);
3. Chest for suicide (Tacitus, Historiae – Liber II, chap.
49);
4. Cutting veins for suicide (Tacitus, Annales – Liber IV
– chap.22);
5. Throat for suicide (Tacitus, Annales – Liber XVI, chap.
15, par.2);
6. Chest for suicide C. Plinius Caecilius Secundus,
Epistulae – Liber:3, Epsitula:16, par,6);
7. Throat for suicide (Svetonio De Vita Caesarum – Nero,
chap. 49, par.1);
8. Left side for suicide (Svetonio, De Vita Caesarum
– Otho, par. 11);
9. Side for suicide (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Aelius
Spartianus, XIII: Antonius Caracallus – chap:7);
10. Chest for suicide (Aurelius Uictor Libellus de uita
et moribus imperatorum breuiatus – Epitome de
Caesaribus – chap. 39);
11. Neck (Ammianus Marcellinus Rerum gestarum libri
86
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
86
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VIII - CLASSICAL CITATIONS
– dissertatio.5), or as a means for seeking justice towards
people who are too attached to things of the flesh, who
would have been symbolically struck first by the doublebladed sabre in the Old Testament and then by the pugio
in the Gospels (Iulianus Toletanus in De comprobatione
sexae aetatis libri tres – Cl. 1260).
The “leaden pugio”, symbol of inefficacy, we find
referring to pagans whose dialectics were misleading
in comparison with those of Faith (Hieronymus in
Epistulae – Cl. 0620, epist. 97, vol. 55), an example of
a false weapon, referring to the pagan truth (Augustinus
Hipponensis in Contra Iulianum – Cl. 0351, bk.1), or
in comparison with the pointed javelins of dialectic
statements (Augustinus Hipponensis in Contr Iulianum
– Cl. 0351, bk.3), unsteady like a fragile spider’s web
(Sedulius Scotus in Liber de rectoribus christianis
– pag. 65, line.10), and generally a symbol for an invalid
subject as cited in Augustinus Hipponensis (Contra
Iulianum – Cl. 0351, bk.3), Claudianus Mamertus (De
statu animae – Cl. 0983, bk.3, par.16), Iohannes Scoto
Eriugena (De divina Praedestinatione – liber chap. 3)
and Sedulius Scotus (Collectaneium miscellaneum
– Diusio.13, subdiuisio.1). The pugio is also described
as a means of sadness, through which pleasure may then
be appreciated (Gregorius Magnus – dubium – in librum
primum Regnum expositionum libri VI, Cl. 1719, bk.1,
chap. 77), very efficient as a weapon for materially and
morally killing a person (Petrus Damianus in Epistulae
– CLXXX, Vol.4, epist.154), a means used by the divinity
to strike the religious when mendacious (Petrus Damianus
(Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol. 3, epist. 107) or as a symbol for
the most dangerous snares which God can, however, save
us from (Historia Compostellana in bk.2, chap.53). There
are three Biblical accounts in which the pugio acquires the
significance of a Divine means through which a purifying
action is performed.
The story of the massacre of the Midianites is related in 20
citations. Moses and his followers attacked the Midianites
(whose forefather, Madian, was the son of Abraham and
his concubine Keturah) when the two peoples entered
into contact, and killed the men and women who were
not virgins. Killing by pugio (the genitals of the sinners
were struck) transferred a purifying action to the genitals
which had committed the sin. The citations referring to the
Midianites are in Isidorus Hispalensis (Etymologiarum
sive Originum – books XX, Cl. 1186, bk.7, chap. 6 and
Mysticorum expositions sacramentorum esu Quaestiones
in Uetus Testamentum – Cl. 1195, In Numeros, chap. 42),
Pauca problesmata de enigmatibus ex tomis canonicis
(Prefatio et libri de pentateucho Moysi – textus longior
– De Numeris, par. 444) in Petrus Damianus (Epistulae
– CLXXX, Vol.2, epist. 61), in Petrus Damianus
(Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol.3, epist. 112), in Petrus
Damianus (Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol.4, epist. 162), in
Rupertus Tuitiensis (Commentarium in Apoclypsim
Iohannis apostolic – Lib. 2, chap.2), in Rupertus Tuitiensis
(De sancta trinitate et operibus eius, CM 22, bk.17, In
Numeros II), in Rupertus Tuintiensis (De sancta trinitate
et operibus eius – CM 22, lib.17, In Numeros II), in
Rupertus Tuitiensis (De sancta trinitate et operibus eius
– CM 22, bk. 19, In Deuteronomium II), in Bernardus
Claraeuallensis (Epistulae – Epist. 236, par.1, vol.8), in
Aelredus Rieuallensis (Homiliae de oneribus propheticis
Isaiae – Homilia, 24, par.20), in Stefanus Tornacensis
(Sermones – PL 211, col.568), in Philippus Haurengius
(De oboendientia – chap. 38), in Petrus Blesensis (Passio
Reginaldi principis Antiochie), in Thomas of Chobham
(Summa de arte praedicandi – chap.6), in Petrus Cantor
(Summa quae dicitur Uerbum adbreuiatum (textus
conflates) – par.2, chap. 24), in Petrus Cantor (Summa
quae dicitur Uerbum adbreuiatum (textus conflates)
and senators afterwards. As they all refused the symbol of
imperial power, Vitellius delivered the pugio to the Temple
of Concord in order to give a tangible sign of his desire to
re-establish peace among the citizens.
In S. Aurelius Victor (Historiae abreviatae – vulgo: Liber
de Caesaribus – Chap.13) by delivering this weapon,
Suburano, Praetorian Prefect, is bestowed with the symbol
of power and, therefore, the Emperor’s trust.
As well as being a symbol of power, we find the pugio as a
divine or divinised weapon, by which life was taken from
an emperor: in Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum – Vitellius
– chap. 10, par. 3) the pugio with which Otho is killed
is sent to the Colonia Agrippiniensis to be consecrated
to Mars; in Tacitus (Annales – Liber XV – chap.53 and
Liber XV, chap. 74) Nero is killed with a pugio which
was consecrated to the temple of the goddess Salus or, in
another version, from the Temple of Fortuna in the city of
Ferrento on which “A Giove Vindice” had been engraved.
The pugio could be interpreted as a message of death, an
invitation to suicide by means of an honourable death,
as described by Tacitus (Annales – Liber IV – chap. 22)
referring to the pugio sent to the praetor, Plautius Silvanus,
who had killed his wife in a disgraceful manner.
The soldiers who in the citations are narrated as carriers of
a pugio are: a Prefect of the Pretorio (Scriptores Historiae
Augustae – Aelius Lampridius – VII: Commodus Antonius
– chap.6); the Praetorians (Tacitus in Historiae – Liber I
– 43); and the soldiers from the infantry (Tacitus Annales
in Liber XI – chap. 18, par. 3) among whom a soldier is
decorated with the Civic Crown, Tacitus (Annales – Liber
XVI, chap.15).
In any case, in most citations the pugio is described as
being in the possession of civilian. The most narrated use
is for a plot, an underhand and scheming action, probably
due to the ease with which it could be hidden under the
folds of the togas (C. Sallustius Crispus – Historiarum
reliquiae – in aliis scriptis servatae – liber: 3; Seneca
– De Clementia – libro 1 chap. 9) or generally hidden on
a person (Esusebius Caesariensis – sec. Translo. Quam
fecit Rufinus – Historia ecclesiastica CL. 0198 K(A),
bk.2, chap.20); one particular episode has it strapped to a
thigh (Velleius Paterculus in Historiae Romanae – Liber.2,
chap.43).
Cicero was the first Author to use the pugio with a
symbolic purpose. The definition “leaden pugio”, which
contrasts with how the weapon actually was, refers to a
deceptive action or way of speaking and intends an object
which has lost its otherwise excellent effectiveness, thus
illustrating its reputation as an infallible means to causing
death. A historical fact which illustrates the pugio being
used symbolically is when, after the death of Emperor
Caligula, two booklets were found: one of which was
entitled “pugio” and the other “gladius”. Both contained
the names and faults of those who were condemned to
death, the first by order of the Senate and the second by
the equestrians. The account is given to us by Suetonius
(De Vita Caesarum – Caligula, chap.49), Orosius
(Historiarum adversum paganos – bks vii, Cl.0571, vol.III,
bk.7, chap.5), Landolfus sagax (Additamenta ad Pauli
Hist. Rom.- Auct.ant.2, Bk.VII), Iohannes Sarisberiensis
(Policraticus – tom.II, bk.8, chap. 18), Alexander Minorita
(Expositio in Apocalypsim – QQ Geistesgesch.1, chap.6)
and Ebendorfer Thomas (Chronica regun Romanorum
– SS rer. Germ. N.S.18, Liber II).
The symbolic/metaphorical meaning, however, was
typical of Christianity, where the pugio was understood
as an instrument of aggression (Hieronymus in Liber
tertius adversus libros Rufini – Cl. 0614), as a cause for
cutting (Laurentius a Brundisio in Explanatio in Genesim
87
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
87
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
I cent. B.C. (100 b.C. – 31 a.D.)
CICERO
“CORPUS CAESARIANUM”
CAIO SALLUSTIO CRISPO
VERGILIUS MARO GRAMMATICUS
MARCUS VELLEIO PATERCOLUS
Total
I –II cent. a.D. (0 – 125 a.D.)
LUCIO ANNEO SENECA
VALERIUS MAXIMUS
GRANIUS LICINIANUS
MARTIAL
SEXTUS J. FRONTINUS
PUBLIUS C. TACITUS
PLINY the YOUNGER
M. IUNIAN(I)US IUSTINIUS
G. SVETONIUS TRANQUILLUS
Total
II cent. A.D. (125 – 166 a.D.)
AULUS GELLIUS
Total
III cent. A.D. (263 – 339 a.D.)
EUSEBIUS CESARIENSIS
Total
IV CENT. a.D. (320 – 430 a.D.)
MARCELLUS NONIUS
HISTORIA AUGUSTA
AURELIO VICTOR
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS
SAINT GIROLAMO
HOLY BIBLE
AURELIUS PRUDENZIO CLEMENS
SERVIUS GRAMMATICUS
AGOSTINO D’IPPONA
SESTUS A. VICTOR
OROSIUS
HISTORIA APOLLONI REGIS TYRI
Total
V CENT. a.D. (474 – 521 a.D.)
CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS
ENNODIUS MAGNUS FELIX
Total
VI CENT. a.D. (538 – 636 a.D.)
GREGORY OF TOURS
GREGORIY I (MAGNO)
S. HISIDORUS HISPALENSIS
Total
We have given a long excursus on the Pugio in its various
citations in order to understand how it was interpreted by
the various Authors of the Latin language. When we read a
citation, unfortunately we cannot know whether the Author
use the term pugio in an appropriate way or whether it
was used as a general synonym to define any type of
dagger. The pugio implies a military weapon, typical of
the Roman army, with very precise connotations, as can
be inferred from the chapters in this book. Unfortunately,
it is not possible to sort these citations into groups other
than “Historical Events” and “Symbolic/Religious”,
nor is it possible to define those as more reliable which
are contextual to the age in which the pugio was in use.
Certainly, Julius Caesar was killed by this weapon during
a conspiracy, not only because numerous Authors relate
the news (many later writers had the habit of relating news
by copying it from previous Authors), but also because
a coin was made with the effigy of a pugio proclaiming
the tyrannicide. We can, therefore, hypothesise and draw
personal conclusions, but we consider it appropriate – until
proved wrong - to consider that all the citations in the
context of historical events refer to the pugio as we have
defined it par excellence.
88
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
88
27/05/2012, 16.24
Symbolic or
Religious Account
Author/work
historical events
LIST OF THE VARIOUS AUTHORS WHO CITE
THE TERM “PUGIO”
divided by centuries
– pars.2, chap. 32), in Speculum uirginum (Chap.5) and in
Giullebertus (De superfluitate clericorum – Stropha, 263,
verus, 1).
The story of Judith describes the assassination of
Holofernes, general of Nebudchadnezzar, during the
conquest of Judea. Judith, a Jewish woman famous for
her intelligence, presented herself in the Assyrian camp
declaring to have betrayed her people and, after having
made Holofernes drunk, she cut his head off with a pugio.
By means of this action by a woman, God stopped the
enemy army which, without its general, could not conclude
its task of conquering the promised land. The 5 citations
which mention the name of the weapon in question are:
Petrus Damianus (Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol.3, epist. 114),
Petrus Damianus (Sermones – Sermo. 68), Rupertus
Tuitiensis (Liber de diuinis officiis – Lib.12), Philippus
Haurengius (De silentio – Chap. 111) and Speculum
uirginum (Chap.7).
Also in the Biblical episode of David against Goliath, the
Philistine giant who terrorised and insulted the Jews and
their God, we find the action of the pugio. David, thanks
to the action of God, managed to knock out Goliath with
a stone thrown from his sling, and then he used the giant’s
sword to decapitate him, which Petrus Damianus in the
Epistulae (CLXXX vol.3, epist. 120) defines as a pugio.
7
2
1
1
1
12
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
10
1
1
13
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
5
1
3
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
16
0
0
0
0
6
3
0
0
4
0
0
3
16
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
3
0
1
2
3
CHAPTER VIII - CLASSICAL CITATIONS
VII CENT. a.D. (640 – 709 a.D.)
ADELMUS
JULIAN OF TOLEDO
Total
VIII CENT. a.D.
PAUCA PROBLESMATA de enigmatibus
Total
IX CENT. a.D. (825 – 880 a.D.)
FRECHULFUS LEXOUIENSIS
IOANNES SCOTUS ERIGENA
SEDULIUS SCOTUS
Total
X CENT. a.D.
LANDOLFUS SAGAX
Total
XI CENT. a.D. (1007 – 1100 a.D.)
PETRUS DAMIANI
BENZO
CHRONICON NOVALICIENSE
RUPERTO OF DEUTZ
BERNARDUS CLARAEUALLENSI
SEXTUS A. G. PIOSISTRATUS
Total
XII CENT. a.D. (1100 – 1204 a.D.)
HISTORIA COMPOSTELLANA
AERLEDUS RIEUALLENSIS
ANDREAS DE SANCTO VICTORE
IOHANNES SARISBERIENSIS
STEFANUS TORNACENSIS
PHILIPPUS HAURENGIUS
PETRUS BLESENSIS
Total
XIII CENT. a.D. (1160 – 1271 a.D.)
THOMAS DE CHOBBAM
RODERICUS XIMENIUS
PETRUS CANTOR
SPECULUM VIRGINUM
GIULLEBERTUS
ALEXANDER BREMENSIS
Total
XV CENT. a.D. (1388 – 1464 a.D.)
THOMAS EBENDORFER
AGOSTINUS BELGICUS
Total
XVI CENT. a.D. (1559 – 1619 a.D.)
LAURENTIUS A BRUNDISIO
Total
TOTAL
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
12
1
1
5
1
1
21
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
10
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
2
2
1
0
6
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
80
1
1
66
TEXTS OF THE CITATIONS
(Translated from Latin)
For all the citations which follow:
No.)
number of order of the citation;
H.E.)
historical event, citation which describes a real
event;
S.R.)
symbolic or religious citation, where the term
“pugio” does not refer to the weapon itself,
but to what it represents in the collective
imagination;
D)
brief description of what the text describes
(where possible)
W)
work from which the extract is taken;
I CENTURY B.C.: 100 B.C. – 31 A.D.
CICERO
1) H.E.) D) Assassination of Julius Caesar;
W) M. Antonium orations Philippicae – Oratio 2, par.30,
line,5;
“In fact, he thus said: “Bruto, honourable as I recall,
holding the bloody pugio in his hand, exclaimed ‘Cicero’:
from this it must be understood that he had been an
accomplice (omission).
So you call me a villain, me whom you assume to have
suspected something: the one who carried the pugio,
dripping with blood, before him, is remembered by you as
honourable?”
2) H.E.) D) Assassination of Julius Caesar
W) Orationes – Philppicae – Seconda Filippica – par. 28;
“But remember with which words this man of subtle talent
has demonstrated my guilt: “Immediately after the killing
of Caesar” he said, “Bruto, holding up high the bloody
pugio, shouted out the name of Cicero and congratulated
him for having brought back freedom.” Why me, in
particular? Why, was I part of the conspiracy?
3) H.E.) D) speech against Mark Antony
W) M. Antonium orations Philippicae – Oratio. 13, par.
33;
“What great crime of the Senate! We have neglected
Theopompus, man of very great importance, who knows or
who cares where he is, what he is doing and finally whether
he is alive or dead? You can see Servius Galba in the
encampment surrounded by the same pugio (omission).
I will tell you nothing of Galba, most strong and vigorous
citizen: he will come close furtively, and being close to
you, both he himself and he whom you defame, he will
answer you with the ‘pugio’.”
4) H.E.) D) Assassination of Julius Caesar
W) Epistulae ad Atticum – Liber2, epist.24, par.2;
“In any case he said that there had been a group of
youngsters, at first including Paolo, Cn. Cepione,
that Brutus and Lentulus, son of the Flamine, with the
complicity of the father; then C. Settimio, the scrivener of
Bibulus, had brought a pugio from Bibulus’ house.”
89
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
89
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
C. SALLUSTIUS CRISPUS
5) H.E.) D) Assassination of Julius Caesar;
W) Epistulae ad atticum – Liber.2, epist. 24, par. 2;
“And all that was the object of laughter, Vezio would not
have had a pugio had the consul not given him one, and on
top of that it was disapproved that two days before the Idi,
Bibulus in person had informed Pompeius to be aware of
the trap, so Pompeius had thanked him.”
11) H.E.) D) Civil and treacherous use of the pugio (in the
folds of the toga)
W) Historiarum reliquiae (in aliis scriptis servate) – liber.3,
fragmentum. 59 (par. 134);
“But Oppius, having obtained nothing by prayer, was held
back by Cotta and Voscius while he timidly attempted to
extract his pugio hidden under his robe.”
6) H.E.) D) Assassination of Julius Caesar;
W) Epistulae ad Atticum – Liber, 2, epist. 24, par. 3;
“We believed that it had been done so that Vezio would
have been surprised in the forum with a pugio and, in the
same way, his servants with their javelins, and that he then
would have declared that he had betrayed him.”
VIRGIL THE GRAMMARIAN
12) H.E.) D) Use in war
W) Epitomae – LLA (vol.8) chap. 4;
“Even between ‘war (bellum)’, ‘battle (praelum)’,
‘clash (pugnam)’ and ‘fight (certamen)’ they say that
the difference is not small; in fact, the praelium cannot
take place if not on the praelum, that is on the sea,
which is called praelum because it is more (prae) than
the other elements (elimentis) due to its immensity, with
its submerging and making re-emerge it has supremacy
(praelatum) so to speak in all that is marvellous; the
bellum, instead, cannot be done if not on the belsa, that is
on the field; the belsa, in fact, takes its name from the fact
that it produces many belsa, that is herbs; ‘certamen’ also
derives from a definite place (certo), or rather from the
refuge of the army. ‘Pugna’ is where the rivals (pugilles)
lash out on both sides with their pugiones.”
7) H.E.) D) the pugio is used to stab the stomach and the
chest
W) Epistulae ad familiars – Lib.4, epist. 12, par. 2;
“I had left Marcellus that day; I was going to Beozia, he
was about to go to Italy by ship. The next day Postumius
came to me and told me that M. Marcellus, my colleague,
had been stabbed after dinner with P. Magius Chilone’s
pugio and that he had received two wounds, one in the
chest and the other in the head. In any case, the doctor
hoped that would live.”
8) S/R) D)
W) De finibus bonorum et malorum – Lib.4, chap. 18, par.
48;
“Oh, useless pugio! (figurative expression meaning “What
a petty-minded point!”). In fact, who could grant you the
most important preliminary remark?”
VELLEIUS PATERCULUS
13) H.E.) D) Way of carrying the pugio
W) Historiae Romanae – Liber. 2, chap. 43;
“Having seen the pirate ships along that route, as he
thought, after having taken off his robe and having
strapped his pugio onto his thigh, thus preparing himself
for any event, he suddenly realised that his sight had been
deceived and that a row of trees from far off had created
the image of masts.”
CORPUS CAESARIANUM (work possibly written by
Aulo Irzio)
9) H.S.) D) Assassination
W) Bellum Alexanrinum, Chap. 52, par.2;
“After the assembly he took refuge in Cordobae that same
day in the afternoon, while a certain Minucius Silone,
customer of Lucius Racillus, went to the basilica, delivered
him a motion as if he had to tell him something as a soldier;
then behind Racillus (in fact he covered Cassius’ side), as
if he was quickly asking for a reply - seeing as he had been
given the chance, having wormed his way in - he grabbed
him from behind with his left hand and with his right hand
he stabbed him twice with his pugio.”
I CENTURY B.C.: 0 – 125 A.D.
SENECA
14) H.E.) D) Civil and treacherous use of the pugio (under
the folds of the toga)
W) De Clementia – Bk. 1, chap. 9;
“I would like to remind you how true this is with an
example taken from your family. The star Augustus was a
meek prince, if we start to judge him from the beginning
of his princedom; at the time of the general disaster of the
Republic he drew out, instead, the sword. When he was as
old as you are now, having entered into his eighteenth year,
he already hid pugiones under the folds of friends’ togas,
he had already attempted betrayal by stabbing the side of
the consul M. Antony, and had already been his colleague
in banishment.”
10) H.E.) D) Violent aggression
W) Bellum Hispaiense, chap. 18, par. 2;
“Tullius, even if he had not followed Catone while he
was entering, grabbed the man near the door. As soon as
Tiberius realised what was happening, he pulled out his
pugio and hacked off his hand. So they took refuge with
Caesar.”
90
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
90
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VIII - CLASSICAL CITATIONS
VALERIUS MAXIMUS
S. JULIUS FRONTINUS
15) H.E.) D) The pugio as a symbol of power and
belonging to the army;
W) Facta et dicta memorabilia – Bk.3; chap. 5;
“Clodius Pulcrus obtained the favour of the people,
and attaching his pugio to Fulvia’s robe, he subjected
his soldier’s pride to the power of a woman. Their son,
Pulcrus, not only experienced a soft and indifferent youth,
but was dishonoured by falling hopelessly in love with a
prostitute who was well known in all Rome, and died a
shameful death: having greedily devoured the abdomen
of a pig, he paid for his dirty and shameful intemperance
with his life.”
20) H.E.) D) Assassination on the battle field;
W) Stratgemata – Lib.2, chap.7;
“Quintus Sertorius, while he was fighting on the battle
field, stabbed with his pugio the stranger who had told
him of Irtuleius’ death, so that he could not bring the new
to others and so that the spirits of his men would not be
weakened by this fact.”
TACITUS
21) H.F) D) pugio supplied to praetorians;
W) Historiae – Liber I – 43;
“That day our age saw a great man: Sempronius Densus,
centurion of the praetorian cohort, appointed by Galba
to guard Piso. Grasping his pugio he ran against the
armoured men, cursing their murderous crime and,
attracting the assassins to him by his gestures and words,
helped the wounded Piso, to escape.”
16) H.E.) D)
W) Facta et dicta memorabilia – Bk. 9 – Chap. 4, par. 2;
“But the vice of greed was shown in greater measure
in Quintus Cassius, who, having surprised Silius and
Calpunius in Spain, ready to kill him with their pugiones,
stipulated with Silio five and with Calpunius six million
sesterce and then let them go. Here is a man, if offered just
as many sesterce, one could believe he would happily offer
them his throat.”
22) H.E.) D) Suicide of Emperor Otho;
W) Historiae – Liber II, chap. 49;
“After having scolded the provokers of the disturbance,
once he had gone back, he stayed to greet the leavers, until
all of them had left without violence. When evening fell he
quenched his thirst with a drink of fresh water. Then he
had two pugiones brought to him, he tested the edge and
placed one under his pillow. When he was sure that his
friends had left, he spend a peaceful night, and they say,
not without sleep. At the first light of day he threw his chest
onto the iron. At the groans of the dying man, the freedmen
and slaves and the prefect of the praetorian Plotius Firmus
entered: they found him with only one wound. They quickly
celebrated the funeral: he himself had firmly urged this in
order to avoid his head being chopped off and exposed to
the offences.”
17) H.E.) D)
W) Facta et dicta memorabilia – Liber. 9; chap. 11, para.
4;
“Also the spirit of Magio Chilone was overcome with
madness, who tore with his own hands the life from
Marcellus, who had been spared by Caesar – and this
because he was angry with Marcellus, even though he was
a dear old friend of his and had been his fellow soldier
in the Pompeian army, because he preferred some of his
friends to him: while he was returning to Rome from
Mitilene, where he had been, he stabbed him with a pugio
at the port of Athens, lashing out to slaughter the one who
had caused his madness, enemy of friendship, canceller of
a divine gift, bitter dishonour of the public, religious pity,
for he who had decided to save the life of a very illustrious
citizen.”
23) H.E.) D) pugio worn on the side; symbol of power, life
and death;
W) Historiae – Liber III, chap. 68;
“Holding out his small son, he entrusted him to this one
and then to that one, and then to all the crowd; finally, his
throat tight with grief, he took his pugio from his side, as
the right to life or death of citizens, and handed it over to
the consul (it was Cecilio Semplice), while standing next
to him. When the consul refused to accept it, he went away
to the shouts and protests of the those present, to put the
emblems of power into the Temple of Concord and then
reach his brother’s house.”
GRANIUS LICINIANUS
18) H.E.) D) Silla’s prescription list;
W) Operis histoirci fragmenta codice rescripto servata
– liber. 36, par. 10, linea. 10;
“And Papirio Mutilo, escaping from there, seeing as
during the night in Teano he had not been welcomed even
by his wife, Bassia as he was on the prescription list, he
helped himself with the aid of a pugio.”
24) H.E.) D) war scene, weapon used in situations of very
close combat.
W) Historiae – Liber IV chap. 29;
“Civilis, having understood this, ordered the fires to be
extinguished, and everything became confused in the fray
and the shadows. Then there was a great cry of confusion,
uncertain combat, because it was neither possible to see,
nor to wound, nor to defend oneself; where the cries came
from, in this direction all the bodies moved, in this direction
the arms were held out in the dark. Personal valour did not
help at all, everything was conducted by chance, and in the
chaotic confusion often the strong fell under the strikes of
the cowardly. The Germanians were transported by rash
frenzy; the Romans, with their experience of danger, did
MARTIAL
19) H.E.) D) Construction technique
W) Epigrammi – Liber XIV – 32, 33 XXXIII;
“ The pugio, which is engraved with a small groove,
curved and not straight, has been sharpened with the
screeching from the gelid waters of Salone.”
91
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
91
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
not throw at random, iron rods and heavy boulders. When
the noise of the assailants or the lifted ladders brought the
enemy close at hand, they pushed them back, knocking
against them with their shields or crushing them with
stacks, and many who had climbed up onto the terreplein
were pierced with pugiones. Once the night had been spent
in this manner, the day uncovered a new phase of combat
for their eyes.”
29) H.E.) D) The pugio as a weapon for an attempted
murder and consecrated in a temple;
W) Annales – Liber XV, chap. 74;
“Then offers and thanks are enacted to the gods and
particular honours to the Sun, whose ancient temple
was near the circus, where the attack had been planned,
because it had disclosed with its power the hidden plot of
the conspiracy; it was also established that the games of
the circus in honour of Ceres should be celebrated with
more horse races, that the month of April should take
its name from Nero and that a temple should be built to
Salos in the place in which Scevinus had taken the pugio.
Nero personally consecrated that pugio in the Capitolium
with the inscription “To Jupiter Vindice”. At the time no
one noticed the coincidence, but after the revolt of Julius
Vindice, it was interpreted as a wish and foreboding for the
future vendetta.”
25) H.E.) D) Suicide of a praetor, the pugio is considered a
message of death from the Emperor;
W) Annales – Liber IV – Chap. 22;
“Without losing time, Tiberius went to Plautius’ house,
examined the bedroom in which traces of resistance and
pushing were apparent. He presented a report in the senate
and the judges had already been chosen when Urgulania,
Silvano’s grandmother, sent a pugio to her grandson.
It is believed that she did this as if to obey a warning
from Tiberius, given the friendship of Augusta towards
Ugulania. The accused, after vain attempts to stab himself
with the weapon, had his veins cut.”
30) H.E.) D) Suicide of Hostorius, valorous soldier;
W) Annales – Liber XVI, chap. 15;
“As every way out of the villa was blocked, the centurion
then told Hostorius of the Emperor’s command (for death).
He used the same firm courage against himself as he had
manifested many times before the enemy; and as his veins,
however much he cut them, poured out little blood, he
resorted to the hand of a slave, but only to make him hold
the pugio quite firmly in an upright position, and grasping
his right hand, he threw himself against the iron which
penetrated his throat.”
26) H.E.) D) Stories of discipline in a theatre of conflict.
It can be sensed that the pugio was a secondary weapon in
comparison with the gladius: the soldier with only a pugio
during his guard duty is punished.
W) Liber XI – chap. 18, par. 3;
“He ordered no one to abandon his troop and start
attacking without having received the order: also the
sentinels and all the military services, both by day and
by night, had to be carried out by armed men. For this
purpose it is said that two soldiers were punished with
death, one because he was digging a trench without being
armed, the other because he only wore a pugio. Overdone
accounts and possibly lies: their origin lies in the severity
of the commander.”
PLINY THE YOUNGER
31) H.E.) D) Suicide of Arria, wife of Caecina Paetus
W) Epistulae – Liber. 3, epistula, 16;
“Following this, when the tears she had long held back
had the better of her and came out, gushing forth: she then
abandoned herself to the pain; and after she had calmed
down, with dry eyes and a composed face, she returned as
if she had let the loss go.
Her gesture is certainly famous: grasping the weapon,
piercing her chest, pulling out the pugio, handing it to
her husband and adding an immortal and almost divine
phrase: ‘Oh Paetus, it doesn’t hurt’.”
27) H.E.) D) Pugio consecrated in a temple;
W) Annales – Liber XV – Chap. 53;
“ While he was immobile on the ground, above him
tribunes and centurions and others according to the
boldness of each one rushed to slaughter him. Scevinus
had asked for a highlighted role for himself, as he had
stolen a pugio from the Temple of Salus in Etruria, or
as some said, from the Temple of Fortuna in Ferento,
and he carried it with him as if it were consecrated to a
great work. Piso meanwhile waited at the Temple of Ceres,
where the prefect Fenius and the others would take him
and bring him to the Praetorian barracks, accompanied
by Antonia, daughter of Claudius Caesar, in order to
generate the people’s sympathy.”
M. JUNIANIUS JUSTINUS
32) H.E.) D) Suicide of Commander Brennus;
W) Epitoma historiarum Philippicarum Ponpei Trogi
– Lib.24, chap. 8;
“A storm then followed which, because of the hail and
the cold, caused the death of those who were wounded.
The same commander Brennus, unable to bear the pain of
those wounds, ended his own life with a pugio.”
28) H.E.) D) The pugio as a weapon for an attempt on
someone’s life;
W) Annales – Liber XV – Chap. 54;
“It is really surprising how among people from different
social ranks, ages and sexes, rich and poor, everything
was kept in total silence until the betrayal was underway
from the house of Scevinus. He, on the eve of the attack,
had a long discussion with Antonius Natalis and then, once
home, set his seal on his will; he drew then his pugio from
its sheath, which has been spoken about, and noticing,
irritated, that it had lost its edge, had it sharpened on a
grindstone until the point was sharp and shiny, designating
the task to the freedman, Milicus.”
G. SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS
33) H.E.) D) Killing of Julius Caesar;
W) De vita Caesarum – Divus Iulius, chap. 82;
“Caesar, after having grabbed Casca’s arm, hit it with
a stylus and, while he attempted to attack him, was held
back by another wound; as soon as he realised that he was
being assailed on all sides with pugiones in their hands, he
wrapped his head in his toga, and at the same time using
his left hand covered his chest right down to his legs so
92
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
92
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VIII - CLASSICAL CITATIONS
everything had gone differently and that Agrippina had
saved herself by swimming, not knowing what to do when
L Agermo, a freed man of his mother’s, came happily to
announce to him that his mother was safe and sound, he
furtively threw a pugio at him with the pretext that he had
been sent by Agrippina to assassinate him, and he gave the
order to take his mother, put her in chains and put her to
death: which would be taken for suicide because her crime
had been discovered.”
that he would die with greater dignity, having also covered
the lower part of his body;”
34) H.E.) D) Killing of the conspirators against Julius
Caesar;
W) De vita Caesarum – Divus Iulius, chap. 89;
“All those condemned died, some for one eventuality,
others for another; some by shipwreck, others in battle,
some others killed themselves with the same pugio with
which they had struck Caesar;”
40) H.E.) D) Nero commits suicide with a pugio;
W) De Vita Caesarum – Nero, Chap. 49;
“While they lingered in this way, a messanger brought
a note to Faone; Nero, tearing it out of his hand, read
that the Senate had declared him a public enemy and
were looking for him in order to punish him according to
ancient custom; he asked what this type of torture might
be and when he found out that the condemned man was
undressed, his head was put in the gallows and then he was
beaten to death, horrified, he grabbed the two pugiones he
had brought with him, he tested their points, then he put
them in their sheaths, protesting that the hour destiny had
reserved for him had not arrived yet.”
35) H.E.) D) Killing of the conspirators of Julius Caesar;
W) De Vita Caesarum – Divus Iulius – par. 89;
“So much for his assassins, none of them survived more
than three years and none died of natural circumstances.
All of them, after having been condemned, one way or
another, died in a tragic way, some by shipwreck, some in
battle. Some then killed themselves with the same pugio
with which they had assassinated Caesar.”
36) H.E.) D) Death of Caligula
W) De Vita Caesarum – Caligula, cap.49;
“He died more or less four months later, pondering over
even more heinous crimes than those which he had had the
courage to be guilty of, because he had decided to move
first to Anzio, then to Alexandria after having sent to their
death all the most eminent members of the two orders.
So that no one has any doubts, let us say that among his
secret cards two booklets were found with two different
headings: one was headed “sword”, the other “pugio”;
both contained the names and faults of those meant to
die.”
41) H.E.) D) Otho commits suicide with a pugio;
W) De vita Caesarum – Otho, para.11;
“After which, quenching his thirst with a little fresh water,
he took two pugiones, whose points he felt, put one under
his pillow, had all the doors closed and slept profoundly.
After waking at sun rise, he pierced the left side of his chest
with one strike; at his first groans they ran into his room,
and he died first hiding and then revealing his wound.”
42) H.E.) D) Galba makes it a symbol of power;
W) De Vita Caesarum – Galba – Chap.11, para.1;
“The death of Vindice was added to the great dangers
which dismayed him and, as if he had lost everything, he
was very close to giving up his own life. But when he then
came to know from some messengers who arrived from
Rome that Nero had killed himself and that everyone had
sworn to his name, he abandoned his title of lieutenant
to adopt that of Caesar and left on a journey, wearing
(NUOVA PAGINA)
his general’s cloak, with a pugio hanging round his neck
which fell onto his chest; he did not take up the toga again
until he had defeated those who were plotting a revolution:
that is the prefect of the praetorian Ninfidius Sabinus in
Rome, and the lieutenants Fonteio Capitone in Germania
and Clodius Macer in Africa.”
37) H.E.) D) Attempted assassination of Tiberius;
W) De Vita Caesarum – Caligula – chap.12, para.3;
“There is nothing plausible about this version because,
according to some authors, he himself confessed after
having pondered for a while over this parricide even if he
did not carry it out; in fact, he continually boasted, exalting
his filial love, of having entered with a pugio in his hand
into the room where Tiberius slept in order to vindicate the
assassination of his mother and his brothers, and to have
withdrawn and thrown the weapon away, overcome with
pity. The Emperor had realised this, but did not venture to
conduct the least inquiry nor even to punish him.”
38) H.E.) D) Emperor Claudius (conspiracies);
W) De Vita Caesarum – Divus Claudius – Chap.13,
para.1;
“Despite this, he did not always remain sheltered
from criminal deeds, and he was exposed to individual
attempted murders, conspiracies, and finally a civil war.
A common man was surprised in his bedroom at midnight
with a pugio in his hand; two Roman cavalry men were
also discovered in the city who were waiting for him with
a rapier and a hunting knife to attack him, one at the
theatre exit, the other while he was making sacrifices in
the Temple of Mars.”
43) H.E.) D) Vitellio offers it as a symbol of power;
W) De Vita Caesarum – Vitellius, chap. 15, para.4;
“Offering the pugio he had taken from his side, first to the
consul and then, as he refused it, to the magistrates and
immediately afterwards to the senators one by one, seeing
as no one would take it, he went away as if to go and place
it in the Temple of Concord.”
44) H.E.) D) A pugio is consecrated;
W) De Vita Caesarum – Vitellius – Chap.10, para.3;
“When he arrived in the camp where the fight had taken
place, as some were disgusted by the sight of decomposing
corpses, he ventured to give them courage with these
unworthy words: ’the body of the dead enemy always
has a good smell and even more so when it is that of a
39) H.E.) D) The pugio is considered a weapon for
hypothetical attempted murder;
W) De Vita Caesarum – Nero – Chap.34, para.3;
“He spent the night awake in a state of agitation, waiting
for the result of the deed, but when he found out that
93
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
93
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
SCRIPTORES HISTORIAE AUGUSTAE (AELIUS
LAMPRIDIUS and AELIUS SPARTIANUS)
citizen.’ Nevertheless, in order to overcome the strength
of the odour he drank a large quantity of wine in front
of everyone and had it distributed around. With similar
lightness and the same insolence, when he saw the stone
on which was engraved: ‘In memory of Otho’, he said that
‘he was worthy of a similar mausoleum’ and sent the pugio
with which that emperor had been killed to the Agrippinian
colony so that it could be consecrated to Mars.”
49) H.E.) D) The pugio as a messenger of death;
W) VII, Commodus Antoninius – Chap.4;
“And he, moving towards Commodus, having drawn his
gladius, as he had had the opportunity to do so, he burst
out with these words: ‘The Senate sends you this pugio’,
he foolishly revealed the wickedness and completed the
mission with few accomplices”;
45) H.E.) D) Domitian attempts to defend himself from an
attack by using a pugio;
W) De Vita Caesarum – Domitanus – chap. 17;
“The young slave who was there as usual to watch over
the Lari in the imperial bedroom and was present at
the assassination, also said that from the first wounds
Domitian ordered him to bring him his pugio which was
hidden under his pillow, and to call his servants, but that
he only found the weapon’s handle at the bedside, and that
apart from that all the doors were barred; he also added
that in the meantime Domitian, having thrown Stephanus
on the ground and grabbed him, fought for a long time
with him, both attempting to take the dagger away from
him (here the term ‘ferrum’ is used) and also to dig out his
eyes with his chopped fingers.”
50) H.E.) D)
W) VII: Commodus Antoninus – Chap.5;
“In that period Claudius was also killed, so to speak by
robbers, and his son once came close to Commodus with a
pugio, many other senators were killed without judgement
and also some rich women (were killed).”
51) H.E.) D) A freed man is called Pugio by the weapon
he wore;
W) VII: Commodus Antoninus – Chap.6;
“Among these also the prefect Ebonziano was killed and in
his place the same Cleandro was appointed with two others
whom he had chosen. So for the first time there were three
prefects of the praetorian among whom a freed man who
was called after his pugio.”
II CENTURY A.D.: 125 – 166 A.D.
AULUS GELLIUS
52) H.E.) D) Killing of Antonino- Caracallus by a
henchman;
W) XIII: Antoninus Caracallus – Chap.7;
“And he was killed right in the middle of the march
between Carre and Edessa after he had dismounted from
his horse in order to empty his bladder while conspirators
were moving among his bodyguards. Finally, while his
henchman made him mount his horse, he pierced his side
with a pugio and everyone shouted that Martial had done
it.”
46) H.E.) D) List of the technical names of weapons
W) Noctes Atticae – Bk.10, Chap. 25, para.2;
“These are those things which were enough then: spear,
javelin, falarica, small falarica, javelin of iron, Celtic
javelins, spear, hunting javelins, long projectiles, tragola,
framea, javelins with neckstraps, projectiles with nails,
scimitars, war machines for hurling arrows, hunting
skewers, small scythes, swords, daggers, greek swords,
sabres, small points, pugiones, knives;”
III CENTURY A.D.: 263 – 339 A.D.
53) H.E.) D) Emperor Hadrian;
W) I: Hadrianus – Chap.24;
“He immediately wrote his will and did not neglect the
activity of State, from the moment that Antoninus had said
there would be a parricide if, having adopted Hadrian,
he was exposed to being killed. And after the will he
attempted to kill himself a second time; after the pugio
was removed from him, he became even more cruel.”
EUSEBIUS CAESARIENSIS
47) H.E.) D) History of persecution of the Church;
W) sec. Transl. Quam fecit Rufinus – Historia ecclesiastica
CL.0198 k(A), bk.2, Chap.20;
“In the same way, a little afterwards, he added also this:
‘Sometimes they killed even those who they ran into in
the city; the killers, above-all on feast days, wandering
among the people with hidden pugiones killed all those
who had been nominated if they happened to meet them
face to face.”
AURELIUS VICTOR (PSEUDO)
54) H.E.) D) The pugio as a weapon for a suicide;
W) Libellus de uita et moribus imperatorum breuiatus
(Epitome de Caesaribus) – Chap.39;
“In this period Carausius in the Gaul, Achilles in Egypt,
Julian in Italy, after having become emperors died in
different ways.
Among these, Julian, after having stuck a pugio in his ribs,
threw himself into a fire.”
IV CENTURY A.D.: 320 – 430 A.D.
NONIUS MARCELLINUS
48) H.E.) D) Definition of the pugio;
W) De compendiosa doctrina LLA615, bk.19;
(NUOVA PAGINA)
“The pugio is a short gladius”;
94
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
94
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VIII - CLASSICAL CITATIONS
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS
ready Faith and pure confession do not lack dialectic
acumen, which pierces one’s adversary after having
snatched the pugio from his hands;”
55) H.E.) D) fatal accident caused by a pugio;
W) Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt – Liber.17,
Chap.4;
“So, while he was running in a disorderly manner among
those who were given to the looting, made clumsy by
the width of his clothes, he fell to the ground flat on his
stomach and, wounded almost mortally by his own pugio
which he carried attached to his right thigh, unsheathed by
the sudden violence of the fall, died.”
61) S/R) D)
W) Epitulae Cl. 0620, epist. 64, vol.54;
“all that we have relished and eaten voraciously is thrown
into the latrine. We have already spoken about the arm; the
jaw indicates an eloquent and educated person because we
express with out mouths what we have conceived in our
hearts; the stomach, where food is received, pierced by the
pugio of a priest into the Midianite courtesan, condemns
all the efforts of men and all the momentary pleasures
of gluttony, transforming them into dung, and shows the
minds which are consecrated to God that all we have
relished and eaten voraciously is thrown into the latrine.”
56) H.E.) D) Violent attack with a pugio;
W) Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt – Liber. 29,
Chap.1;
“As it sometimes happened under the princedom of
Commodus and Severus, whose life was often in danger of
great violence after many, different internal dangers -the
first in the cavea of the amphitheatre while he was entering
to see a performance he was almost wounded to death with
the pugio of senator Quinziano, a man of illicit greed; the
second while, now at the end of his life, he was laying
in bed, he would have been stabbed with unexpected
violence by the centurion Saturninus, incited by the prefect
Plauzianus, if his young son had not come to his aid;”
62) S/R) D) killing of the Midianites;
W) Comentarii in prophetas minores – Cl. 0589, SL 76A,
In Malachiam, Chap. (s.s.) 2;
“We read in the book of Numbers of Phineus, who struck
with a pugio Zamri, together with a Midianite prostitute;”
63) S/R) D) killing of the Midianites;
W) Cl. 0620, epist.78, vol.55;
“He fornicates with the Midianite daughters; and Phineus,
son of Eleazar, after having fornicated with the daughters,
for love of the Lord, pierced Zamri and the Midianite
prostitute with a pugio, for which he received as a prize
the stomach of the victim as an eternal souvenir,”
57) H.E.) D) Story of the use of the pugio by an oriental
soldier;
W9 Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt – Liber.31,
Chap.16;
“But the oriental army (Saracens) won because of a new
fact, never seen before. One of them with long hair, nude
everywhere except in his pubic area, having extracted his
pugio, ran into the middle of the Goths making raucous
and grim cries, killed an enemy and put his lips to his neck
and sucked the blood which came out.”
BIBLIA SACRA IUXTA VULGATAM VERSIONEM
(VT)
64) S.R.) D) The pugio as murder weapon;
“She spread a perfumed ointment onto her face, gathered
her curls into a headdress to deceive him, her sandals
attracted his eyes, her beauty captured his soul, she cut off
his head with a pugio.”
HIERONYMUS (St. Girolamo)
58) S/R) D) The pugio with the meaning of aggressive
behaviour;
W) Liber tertius adversus libros Rufini – Cl. 0614;
“And are you not ashamed to call your accusation
defence? You complain because I counter your pugio with
a shield and you put on the mask of humility as if you were
a conscientious person and a goody-goody, and you say:’If
I have done wrong, why do you write it to others and not
blame me?”
65) S.R.) D)
W) Judith, chap.13, verse. 8;
“ Saying, Oh Lord, God of Israel, give me strength and at
this hour look at the works of my hands so that you may
raise up Jerusalem, Your city, as You promised, and I can
complete with faith that which I believed possible with
Your help and, after having said these things, he came
close to the column which stood at the head of the bed and
untied his pugio which hung from it after having been tied
on to it.”
59) S/R) D)
W) Comentarii in Ezechielem – Cl. 0587, bk.9, Chap.
(s.s.),29;
“ And as he served me and honoured my wishes against
Tyrus, I will give him the land of Egypt, which some say
was occupied by Nebuchanezzar, others by Cambises, son
of Cyrus, who devastated Egypt up to Ethiopia, so that he
killed Apis and destroyed all their statues, and they say
that for this reason he went mad after falling from a horse
and that he was pierced with his own pugio;”
66) S.R.)
W) Liber sec. Paralipomenon – Chap. 23, verse.10;
(NUOVA PAGINA)
“The priest gave the centurions spears, shields and the
small shields of the king which David had consecrated in
the house of the Lord.
He put all the crowd holding pugiones from the right to the
left part of the temple, in front of the altar and along the
king’s route.”
60) S/R) D) The dialectics of faith disarms pagans armed
with a pugio;
W) Epistulae – Cl. 0620, epist. 97, vol.55;
“Besides, compared with a place, consecrated to Apollo,
95
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
95
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
PRUDENTIUS-LIBER CATHEMERINON
“But now you could be completely incapable and inexpert,
then you would be an incapable artificer. And in any case,
as if you were crushed by the pointed javelins of dialectics,
you advance in the debate and fling leaden pugiones saying
that if the mixture of bodies placed in different sexes is
negative, then also the condition is deformed.”
67) H.E.) D) Description of the type of wound inflicted
by a pugio;
W) Cl. 1438, hymnus. 12, versus.113;
“So the executioner, having pulled out the dagger,
overcome by fury, strikes at the bodies that have just been
made to fall and makes new soul come out. The killer
hardly finds a space in the small limbs where the wound
descends expanding, and the pugio is bigger than the
throat. Oh, what a barbarous spectacle! The neck is spread
with the brain and vomits from the wounds, in addition the
eyes are trembling and incapable of speaking, immersed in
a profound vortex, and the tight jaws cause the saliva and
breathing to produce a noise similar to a hiccup.”
73) S./R.) D) Symbol of inefficiency (if leaden)
W) Contra Iulianum – Cl. 0351, bk. 3;
“And in any case, as if you were crushed by the pointed
javelins of dialectics, you advance in the debate and fling
leaden pugiones (intended as inoffensive) saying that, if
the mixture of bodies placed in different sexes is negative,
then also the condition is deformed.”
ST. AURELIUS VICTOR
SERVIUS GRAMMATICUS
74) H.E.) Symbol of power;
W) Historiae abbreviatae (vulgo. Liber de Caesaribus)
– Chap. 13;
“So, confiding in honesty, he often scolded Suburanus,
prefect with the title of Praetorian, while he handed him the
pugio, symbol of power, according to custom: ‘I entrust you
with this for my defence, if you behave correctly; but if you
behave differently, it will rather be used against me,”
68) H.E.) D) Definition of various arms;
W) Commentarius in Vergilii Aeneidos libros – Servus
auctus, LLA 612, vol.2, bk.7, comm.. ad Versum. 664;
“The ‘pilum’ is specifically a Roman spear, like the Gauls’
gaesa and the Macedonians’ sarissae. The picca can be
an instrument, in whose rod the pugio can be hidden or,
according to Varrone, a long pole with a very short blade.
The picca is also called in this way from the verb fallo, as
they deceive with iron, as their shape looks like a piece of
wood;”
OROSIUS
75) H.E.) D) Killing of Julius Caesar;
W) Historiarum adversum paganois – libri vii Cl. 0571,
vol. II, bk. 6, Chap. 17,
“It is said that that in that conspiracy there were more than
sixty accomplices. The two, Brutus and Caius Cassius and
other companions with pugiones in their hands left for the
Capitolium;”
AUGUSTINUS HIPPONENSIS
69) H.E.) D) The torment suffered by Catholic Bishop
Massimiano by the Donatists;
W) Epistulae – Cl. 0262, epist. 185, vol. 57, para. 7;
“While the bishop was at the altar, they assailed him with
horrible violence and furious cruelty, and they struck him
with sticks and every type of weapon and with the same
planks of the altar they had broken up; they even struck
him with a pugio in his groin and, due to the blood which
flowed out of the wound, he would have died there and
then had their greater ferocity not saved his life. In fact, by
pulling him across the ground after having wounded him
so badly, the dust penetrated the open veins and stopped
the haemorrhage which would have led to his death;”
76) H.E.) D) booklet with list of enemies of Emperor
Caligola;
W) Historiarum adversum paganos – libri vii, Cl. 0571,
vol. III, bk. 7, Chap. 5;
“And he subsequently ordered all the exiles to be killed
together, but he, himself, was killed by his protectors.
Among his secret papers two booklets were found: one had
a pugio and the other a gladius in the place of the indication
of the title: both contained the names of first-rate men of
both orders, those of the Senate and the equestrians, and
notes on those who had been meant to die;”
70) S./R.) D) Leaden pugio, referring to deceptive pagan
truths;
W) Soliloquiorum libri duo – Cl. 0252;
“So the soul lives forever. (Augustine) Oh, inoffensive
pugio!”
HISTORIA APOLLONI REGIS TYRI (Italian novel)
77) S./R.) D)
W) Chap. 31, para. 23;
“Vilico carried the pugio and kept it hidden on his side
and, turning his gaze towards the sky, said: ‘Oh God, I do
not deserve to have received freedom, if not for having
spilt the blood of a virgin,”
71) S./R.) D) Symbol of inefficiency (if leaden);
W) Contra Iulianum – Cl. 0351, bk. 1;
“What are the Aristotelian categories, by virtue of which
you would always like to seem perfect to attack us as one
who is a master of expressing their thoughts? Which of
your points, as points of glass or as leaden pugiones, will
dare to be shown to their eyes?
Which weapons will not escape you and will not leave you
unmasked??
78) S./R.) D) weapon advised for a murder;
W) Chap. 31;
“You should hide yourself with a pugio, kill her while she
arrives and throw her body into the sea. When you arrive
and give news of this fact, together with the reward you
will receive freedom.”
72) S./R.) D) Symbol of inefficiency (if leaden)
W) Contra Iulianum – Cl. 0351, bk. 3;
96
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
96
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VIII - CLASSICAL CITATIONS
79) S./R.) D)
W) Chap. 31, para. 65;
“Vilico, although he was attracted by the hope of freedom,
still left with sadness, he prepared the pugio making it very
sharp and went away behind the statue of the wet nurse,
Tarsia.”
86) S./R.) D) killing of the Midianites;
W) Mysticorum expositions sacramentorum esu
Quaestiones in Uetus Testmentum – Cl. 1195, In Numeros,
Chap. 42, para. 8;
“But Phineus, priest full of zeal, in order to appease the
wrath of the Lord, pierced Zambri and the Midianite with
the pugio, hoping to point out that by means of the cross of
Christ not only idolatry but also carnal passion and the lust
of modern life are destroyed;”
V CENTURY A.D.: 474 – 521 A.D.
CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS
87) H.E.) D) description of a deceptive pugio sheath;
W) Etymologiarum siue Originum – libri XX Cl. 1186,
Bk. 18, Chap. 9, para. 4;
“The book deposit is also called library. The picca are
wooden sheaths within which a pugio is hidden under
the appearance of a stick. The picca are called this way
because of their deceit, as they deceive by way of the iron,
while they have the appearance of a piece of wood;”
80) S./R.) D) Symbol of inefficiency (if leaden);
W) De statu animae – Cl. 0983, bk. 3, para. 16;
“But naturally it was right to fight all the time in which
the adversary managed to oppose resistance; to be more
precise, it was right, when he escaped, to chase after him
and disarm him of his leaden pugiones after having placed
him under my power;”
VII CENTURY A.D.: 640 – 709 A.D.
ENNODIUS
ALDHELMUS SCIREBURNENSIS
81) S./R.) D) weapon of death;
W) Dictiones xxvii – Cl. 1489, dictio. 23, para. 497;
“Ruined by the evil of obstinacy, after having killed his
father, the son forced himself to cancel his mother’s good
reputation. Disillusioned by the fact that we had escaped
the pugio, he attempted to find fame by death; we have
more fear of losing our honour than of dying;”
88) H.E.) D) Construction technique, proposed in quite an
enigmatic manner;
W) Aenigmata – Cl. 1335, aenigma. 61, versus. 1;
“The Greek has marked the name on the base of the
end; so the Latin speakers call it in the same way with
the appropriate term (pugio). From the beginning it was
artfully forged from the enflamed entrails of the earth,
the rest of material derives from wild boars and is formed
from the putrid corpses of goats;”
VI CENTURY A.D.: 538 – 636 A.D.
GREGORIUS TURONENSIS
IULIANUS TOLETANUS
82) H.E.) D) weapon used during a struggle;
W) Historiarum – libri X Cl. 1023, liber. 7, Chap. 29, para.
348;
“While Claudio, having raised his right hand, tried to stick
the knife into his chest, he (Eberulfo) tried to dig the pugio
under his armpit in the same way; pulling back to deal a
blow, he cut off Claudio’s thumb;”
89) S./R.) D) the pugio as an instrument of power;
W) De comprobatione sextae aetatis libri tres – Cl. 1260;
“So it is right that the mouths of similar people, soiled by a
long experience of attachment to carnal things, are limited
first by the double-bladed sabre of the Old Testament,
then by the strong and new pugio of the Gospels, that
they might approach the book of the third issue, in which
they might also recognise the sixth age of the world and
understand that Christ was born in this;”
GREGORIUS MAGNUS
83) S./R.) D) The pugio as a symbol of beneficial sadness,
as a means to then appreciate pleasure
W) (dubium) – In librum primum Regnum espositionum
libri VI, Cl. 1719, lib. 1, Chap. 77;
“And since in this joy of the soul relief is not received
from tears if one does not first experience the bitterness
of strong pain and, whatever survives after fleeting joy,
strikes it dead with the pugio of beneficial sadness, it was
said that Anna was first saddened in her soul, so she was
then able to cry abundantly;”
VIII CENTURY A.D.
PAUCA PROBLESMATA DE ENIGMATICUS ET
TOMIS CANONCIS
90) S./R.) D) killing of the Midianites;
W) Prefatio et libri de pentateucho Moysi (textus longior)
– De Numeris, para. 444;
“During this stop, Phineus, son of Eleazar, struck Zambri
with a pugio, together with a prostitute, in the genitals;
that is Christ from the wood of the cross kills the devil and
idolatry and the concupiscence of idolatry;”
85) S./R.) D) killing of the Midianites;
W) Etymologiarum sive Originum – libri XX, Cl. 1186,
bk. 7, Chap. 6, para. 49;
“In fact, he pierced Zambri together with the Midianite
prostitute with a pugio and appeased the wrath of the Lord
until he had pity. Zambri was in the position of one who
poses a challenge and provokes bitterness;”
97
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
97
27/05/2012, 16.24
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
IX CENTURY A.D.: 825 – 880 A.D.
XI CENTURY A.D.: 1007 – 1100 A.D.
FRECHULFUS LEXOUIENSIS
PETRUS DAMIANI
91) H.E.) D) Killing of Julius Caesar;
“The two, Brutus and Caius Cassius and other companions
left with pugiones in hand for the Capitolium;”
96) S./R.) D)
W) Epistulae – CLXXX Vol. 1, epist. 27;
“Eglon, King of Moabita, may he not keep you under his
power, but may he pierce you suddenly with his pugio
together with that Aoth.”
IOHANNES SCOTO ERIUGENA
SEDULIUS SCOTUS
97) S./R.) D) Attempt of capital punishment;
W) Epistolae – Epp. Kaiserzeit IV, 3, Epist. 123;
“But as they could not perpetrate this villainy among
them, attempting first fear and then blandishments, once
the sentence of the governor was pronounced, they were
condemned to death. What more can be said? Immediately
the javelin throwers approached them, threw the pugiones
which made their bare necks vibrate, but they did not
manage to cut even the outer layer of their skin as the
strokes were without effect,”
92) S./R.) D) Symbol of inefficiency (if leaden)
W) Collectaneum miscellaneum – Diusio. 13, subdiuisio.
1;
“We have out ears as witnesses: the way of speaking is
uncertain, a sign of mendacity. Oh, inoffensive pugio
(leaden in the original text)! Oh, ridiculous subterfuge
and spoils worthy of a fox! Oh, badly made syllogism,
worthy of laughter or rather solecism! Oh, bald forehead!
Shamefully disfigured after your horns were taken out!”
98) S./R.) D)
W) Vita sancti Romualdi – Chap. 28;
“Precisely all night through the bushes of the forests,
across the spread of woody areas, through the shadowy
places of the woods, they looked for the road in fear, but
could in no way find it because the trail was spread here
and there. But they could not even hide their pugiones in
their sheaths because their openings had become rigid with
the dryness,”
94) S./R.) D) Symbol of inefficiency (if leaden);
W) Liber de rectoribus christianis – pag. 65, line. 10;
“Whoever, powerful in war, confides in horrible arms, as
he is not confident, puts aside hope in himself or in his
own and shakes like a leaf; the hail-fall of strikes will be
simulated, since what has been done would even shake a
stranger. And the weave of his armour, like metal, is rigid;
the pugio, like lead, is unstable like the fragile web of a
spider: the long sword with a sharp point becomes pasty,
and not even the shield is sure to protect its owner any
more.”
99) S./R.) D) Judith uses a dagger;
W) Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol. 3, eptist. 114;
“Certainly Judith, an example of widow’s modesty,
despised Oloferne’s wedding bed which was covered in
gold and radiant with crimson; her heart clothed with even
stronger weapons, plunged the pugio, and courageously
cut off his head even if he was drunk;”
92) S./R.) D) Symbol of inefficiency (if leaden)
W) De divina Praedestinatione – liber. 7, Chap. 9;
“What did you say about the division of the world into four
parts? Oh inoffensive pugio (leaden in the original text)!
Oh, perhaps you think that predestination is made of two
parts, just as the world is made of four elements, even if
is one?”
100) S./R.) D) Judith uses the pugio;
W) Sermones – Sermo. 68;
“Judith had been allocated this army, and she
refused the wedding bed of Oloferne, covered with
gold and gems, and she cut off the intoxicated
head of the lustful prince with his own pugio;”
X CENTURY A.D.
LANDOLFUS SAGAX (LANDOLFO SAGACE)
101) S./R.) D) Davdi uses the pugio against Goliath;
W) Epistulae – CLXXX Vol. 3, epist. 120;
“David, at the beginning of his adolescence, while he was
fighting against Goliath in an almost puerile manner, not
with a sword, but with some stones, but like a man in his
full strength he cut off his head with a pugio;”
95) H.E.) D) booklet with Emperor Caligula’s list;
W) Additamenta ad Pauli Hist. Rom. – Auct. Ant. 2, Bk.
VII, p. 300, line 21;
“After he was killed, among his secret documents two
booklets were found: one had a pugio, the other a gladius
in the place of the indication of the title: both contained
the names of men from very high ranks from both orders,
the senate and the equestrian, and notes on those who had
been meant to die.”
102) S./R.) D)
W) Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol. 3, epist. 123;
“What more can one say? Immediately the javelin
throwers approached, they threw their pugiones which
vibrated against their bare necks, but they did not manage
to cut even the outer layer of their skin, because the strokes
were without effect;”
103) S./R.) D) The pugio understood as a very efficient
98
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
98
27/05/2012, 16.24
CHAPTER VIII - CLASSICAL CITATIONS
weapon in killing materially and morally a person;
W) Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol. 4, epist. 154;
“Recently some news has reached us that concerns you,
new and never heard before, and it has brought us sadness
from great pain, it has shaken our already terrified entrails,
shut our mouths from praising your glory as we were
accustomed and it has pierced out heart so to speak with
the very sharp pugio of interior pain;”
Nascondiglio. Iron. Iron instruments. Javellin. Gladius.
Pugio. Sica. Straight sword. Dagger. Stiletto. Spear. Sparo.
Spiedo. Spear. Long javelin. Hunting spear.”
RUPERTUS TUITIENSIS
111) S./R.) D) Judith uses the pugio;
W) Liber de diuinis officiis – Bk. 12;
“At that point she showed how violent the cut through
Oloferne’s head had been, dozy from drunkenness, work
of his own pugio, she said: ‘My God, give me comfort in
this hour;”
104) S./R.) D) The pugio understood as a lethal weapon;
W) Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol. 3, epist. 107;
“I call as witnesses Jesus and his holy angels to the fact
that I am not lying with this excuse. So, if I have to die for
this letter, I stretch out my neck, stick in the pugio.”
112) S./R.) D) the killing of the Midianites;
W) Commentarium in Apocalypsim Iohannis apostolic
– Bk. 2, Chap. (s.s.):2;
“With the same strength of burning love also Phineus,
whom the Jews say was Elijah in person, in the scandal of
which was spoken earlier, as Balaam informed him to send
Balac, under the eyes of the children of Israel, clasping the
pugio entered the den of vice after the Israelite man who
had entered to go to the prostitute, and he pierced both, the
man and the woman in the genitals, and so the wrath of the
Lord was dispelled from Israel;”
105) S./R.) D) Killing of the Midianites;
W) Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol. 2, epist. 61;
“This shame did not cover the face of the priest Phineus,
who grabbed the pugio, and in front of all the people
struck an Israelite in the genitals who was copulating with
a Midianite woman;”
(NUOVA PAGINA)
106) S./R.) D) killing of Midianites;
W) Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol. 3, epist. 112;
“You, man of the Lord, fervent with zeal, take possession
of Phineus’ short sword, so that you can pierce the Israelite
with a sharp pugio who is copulating with the Midianite,
Cosbin,”
113) S./R.) D) the killing of the Midianites;
W) De sancta trinitate et operibus eius, CM 22, bk.17, In
Numeros II;
“After having seen this, Phineus, son of Eleazar, priest of
Aaron, got up in the middle of the multitude and, clasping
a pugio, entered into the den of vice behind the Israelite
man and pierced both, the man as well as the woman, in
the genitals;”
107) S./R.) D) killing of the Midianites;
W) Epistulae – CLXXX, Vol. 4, epist. 162;
“You, furthermore, oh brother, armed with these and
other javelins of the Scriptures, come close to the Madian
camp, strike with the pugio of the divine word Zamri and
Cosbin, who are copulating shamefully under everyone’s
eyes, so that you can deserve the peace of the pact with
the Lord and the right to the office as priest together with
Phineus;”
114) S./R.) D) the killing of the Midianites;
W) De sancta trinitate et operibus eius – CM 22, bk. 17,
In Numeros II;
“Madian committed impure acts with his daughters and
Phineus, son of the priest Eleazar, overcome by a burning
love for the Lord, pierced with a pugio Zamri and the
Midianite prostitute;”
(NUOVA PAGINA)
BENZO DE ALBA
108) S./R.) D)
W) Ad Heinricum IV. Imp. Bks VII SS rer. Germ. 65, Bk.
V, Chap. 1;
“Oh triumpher, Henry, I am coming to you as a
petitioner. From the depths of my heart I turn to you
alone. May your pugio kill those who raid the temples;”
115) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites;
W) De sancta tinitate et operibus eius – CM 22, bk. 19, In
Deuteronomium II;
“At that fleeting moment of spontaneity the dignity of
the priest Phineus is blessed, who during the initiation of
Belfagor, clasping the pugio, entered the den of vice after
the Israelite man and, by piercing both the man and the
woman, dispelled the scourge of the sons of Israel, while
the Lord spoke to Moses;”
CHRONICON NOVALICIENSE
109) S./R.) D)
W) SS 7, Bk. 5, Chap. 31;
“They said: You know nothing of this? In truth, Saint
Peter, taking away their pugiones, gave them some rods
and said. “Go and punish Vidone with the rods, not with
cutting weapons,”
BERNARDUS CLARAEVALLENSIS
116) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites;
W) Epistulae – Epist. 236, para. 1, Vol. 8;
“Who could grant that Phineus step forward with the pugio
against this fornication and that Peter, who with a breath
from his lips could kill the wicked, alive in his See?”
110) H.E.) D) List of weapon names;
W) Synonyma Ciceronis quae dicuntur (Charisii artis
grammaticae libro quinto inserta), LLA 705;
“Volta. Spuma. Lupanare. Caverna. Antro. Caverna.
Immagini. Piccolo antro. Scoglio. Rocks. Baratro.
99
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
99
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
SEXTUS AMARCIUS
would be beaten with rods until death, terrified, he grabbed
two pugiones which he had brought with him and, having
touched the points of both, put them back with the pretext
that it was not yet the moment fate desired for his death;”
(NUOVA PAGINA)
123) H.E.) D) The killing of Julius Caesar;
W) Policraticus, tom. II, Bk. 8, Chap. 15;
“For the rest, somewhat greater strengths were shown in
Quintus Cassius who sent Silius and Albinu Purnius to
Spain to kill those who had been taken with pugiones,
having stipulated fifty sesterces with one and sixty with
the other;”
117) S./R.) D) Sermone;
W) Sermones – QQ Geistesgesch. 6, Bk. 3, Chap. 1;
“No pugio is useful in the work of cruel Mars, who
collected wrath in a stone that was not hard. As we have
been given a fragile life by the Lord and oft times we
lead a life of misfortune with our bodies turned forwards,
and we succumb to the cruel strikes of the enemy, may a
perpetual rite be addressed to the merciful Lord and may
those who are without food and covers be often led under
our roof, and venerated in the manner of Tobia;”
XII CENTURY A.D.: 1100-1204 A.D.
124) H.E.) D) The killing of Julius Caesar;
W) Policraticus – tom. II, Bk. 8, Chap. 19;
“He (Caesar a.n.) anyway, as he had entered the territory
of the state with arms, was considered a tyrant and,
with the consensus of most of the Senate, was killed in
the Capitolium by pugiones clasped in the hands of the
conspirators …. (missing)…
But also at that moment he was mindful of honesty, in fact,
as soon as he realised that he was being attacked by drawn
pugiones, he covered his head with his toga, and at the
same time with his left hand covered his chest right down
to the bottom, to die with more dignity.”
HISTORIA COMPOSTELLANA
118) S./R.) D) The pugio understood as a treacherous and
lethal weapon;
W) Bk. 2, Chap. 53;
“But the capacity of human intellect is not able to
understand or fully explain how the strong right hand
of our just judge, for whom all is possible, could have
ripped him out of the siege and the fire of the tower, how
he could have led him out, in the middle of enemies in
wedge shapes, how he could have freed him from the same
pugiones of the followers who were thirsty for his blood,
and how he could have drawn him out from the midst of
his enemies, even by the guards, how he then could have
made him sublime over his enemies;”
125) H.E.) D) Nero meditates suicide with a pugio;
W) Policraticus – tom. II, Bk. 8, Chap. 19;
And having come to know that the neck of the bared
man was passed through a yoke and that his body was
then beaten by rods until death, terrified, he grabbed two
pugiones which he had brought with him, and having
touched both their points, put them back under the pretext
that it was not yet the moment fate desired for his death;”
119) S./R.) D)
W) Bk. 3, Chap. 47;
“In truth, while the archbishop was speaking humbly
to them, some of the wicked men wanted to kill him
deceptively with pugiones and javelins between the iron
doors of the altar;”
126) S./R.) D)
W) Policraticus – CM 118, Bk. 1, Chap. 4;
“For this purpose he requests the art of those executioners
and puts it into practice, and has as his performer a mime
with a knife which he twirls about, now, clasping the
pugio, the sword blunted, you will be astonished if you
chance to participate in their rituals;”
AELREDUS RIEUALLENSIS
120) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites,
W) Homiliae de oneribus propheticis Isaiae – Homilia :
24, para. 20;
“”In fact, Phineus, thanks to this anger of which we speak,
due to which he killed those who were fornicating with
a pugio, deserved an eternal priesthood, and Leo, son of
Namsi, for the burning love which had spurred him against
the house of Acab, bequeathed to his descendants the reign
of Israel until the fourth generation with God’s favour;”
127) H.E.) D) Suicide of Commander Brenno;
W) Policraticus – tom.II, BK. 6,Chap. 17;
“The a storm came, and the hail and cold killed the
wounded. The same Commander Brenno, not able to stand
the pain of the wounds, ended his life with a pugio;”
121) S./R.) D) Definition during religious preaching;
“Clasping the pugio. The pugio is a type of gladius, called
this way because it pierces. A great miracle occurred.”
128) H.E.) D) Booklet with Emperor Caligula’s list;
W) Policraticus – tom. II, Bk. 8, Chap. 18;
“He himself was killed by his protectors. Among his secret
documents two booklets were found containing the names
of men of high rank who had been condemned to death;
one had a gladius as a title, the other a dagger;”
IOHANNES SARISBERIENSIS
STEFANUS TORNACENSIS
122) H.E.) D) Nero meditates suicide by pugio;
W) Policraticus – Ed. Webb. Tom. II, Bk. 8, Chap. 19;
“And having come to know that the neck of the stripped
man would be passed through the yoke and that the body
129) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites;
W) Sermones – PL 211, Col. 568;
“If I wanted to take his magnificent works into my own
hands again, Phineus pierced an Israelite with a pugio
ANDREAS DE SANCTO VICTORE
100
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
100
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER VIII - CLASSICAL CITATIONS
RODERICUS XIMENIUS DE RADA
who was committing impure acts with Midianite woman;
in fact, with the fulfilment of this task it happened that he
kept his own place, encountered favour and placed an end
to the upheaval.”
135) H.E.) D) The killing of Julius Caesar;
W) Breiarium historie catholice – CM72B, Bk. 8, Chap.
101;
“On the instigation of Brutus and Cassius a conspiracy was
organised against him by more than sixty senators and, as
it was not lawful to bring arms into the Capitolium, the
conspirators brought rods of iron with them or pugiones
and, after having moved aside with him, stuck him twentythree times;”
PILIPPUS HARUENGIUS
130) S./R.) D)
W) Epistulae – Ep. 16 (ad Philippum);
“Although he murmured the stupidity of some carnal men
against him (in fact he always finds some envious men and
this is a sign which the power of the spirit opposes) in any
case, enflamed with ardour, he proceeds and does not put
the pugio back until he carries out a worthy revenge on his
slanderers;”
PETRUS CANTOR
136) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites,
W) Summa quae dictur Uerbum adbreuiatrum (textus
conflates) – para. 2, Chap. 24;
“On the one hand Phineus struck with a pugio those who
were copulating, on the other Moses, armed, killed the
idolaters going from door to door to avoid all the people
perishing, and on the other again Samuel killed Amalech,
saved by Saul against the order of the Lord and cut Agag,
the very obtuse king, into pieces;”
131) S./R.) D) The pugio in the hand of a woman;
W) De silentio – Chap. 111;
“When divine mercy decided to visit those who underwent
sufferance, it took away those who caused it in the way it
wanted and sent the widow Judith, endowed with moral
integrity, skilful in speaking, worthy of praise for her
purity, to seduce the prince with wine and love and to kill
him with his own pugio by the hand of a woman;”
137) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites;
W) Summa quae dicitur Uerbum adbreuiatum (textus
conflates) – para. 2, Chap. 32;
“On the one hand Phineus pierced with a pugio those who
were copulating and put an end to the upheaval;”
132) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites;
W) De oboedientia – Chap. 38;
“So the priest Phineus considered just that when one of the
children of Israel, under the eyes of all the people, turned
to a Midianite prostitute, enflamed with love for God,
clasping the pugio, hurried to enter the den of vice and
pierced the genitals of the man and the woman;”
SPECULUM VIRGINUM
138) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites;
W) Chap.5;
“Judith and Susanna presented themselves, one of whom
was a prim winner, and slaughtered with his own pugio the
invincible tyrant, enemy of chastity, rebel of God, dissolute
adulterer; the other drove away some shameless priests,
wolves in sheep’s clothing, choosing, after having kept
chastity, death itself and unaware of the fear of God.”
PETRUS BLESENSIS
133) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites;
W) Passio Reginaldi principis Antiochie;
“Samuel cut the King Agag into pieces. Phineus killed
with a pugio a Jew who was copulating with a Midianite.
Elijah, inciting celestial fire, killed two Commandants of
fifty men together with one hundred men;”
139) S./R.) D) Judith;
W) Chap. 7;
“Listen to what Judith earned for herself with a widow’s
modesty, honour of the Judaic lineage, who, abandoning
sex with uprightness and tenacity, killed with his own
pugio a common enemy;”
XIII CENTURY A.D: 1170 – 1271 A.D.
THOMAS DE CHOBBAM
134) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites;
W) Summa de arte praedicandi – Chap. 6;
“And for the second time, as can be read in Numbers,
as the sons of Israel had committed impure acts with the
Midianites, the Lord wanted to destroy all their people, if
he had not been appeased by Phineus, who with his own
pugio pierced the genitals of one while he was sleeping
with a Midianite woman, and God could not have been
appeased by the discourse of Moses or Aaron if not by
Phineus alone who for the first time avenged so cruelly
that sin of fornication;”
GIULLEBERTUS
140) S./R.) D) The killing of the Midianites;
W) De superfluitate clericorum – Stropha. 263, Versus. 1;
“No one is capable of appeasing anger and turmoil, God is
not induced to appease. In fact, no Phineus holds a pugio
with which Madia avenges the prostitute;”
101
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
101
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
ALEXANDER MINORITA
141) H.E.) D) Booklet with list Emperor Caligula;
W) Exposisto in Apocalypsim – QQ Geistesgesch. 1,
Chap. 6;
“In fact, after his death, among the secret documents two
booklets were found, on one of which pugio had been
written, on the other gladius instead of the title, both
contained the names and news of men of high rank of
both orders, senators and equestrian, who he wanted to
vanquish with death;”
XV CENTURY A.D.: 1170-1271 A.D.
EBENDORFER THOMAS
142) H.E.) D) Booklet with Emperor Caligula’s list;
W) Chronica regum Romanorum – SS rer. Germ. N.S. 18,
Liber. II;
“Two booklets were found after his death: one of which
was called pugio, the other sword, in which it is said were
written the names of the Romans of high rank who were
condemned to death;”
143) H.E.) D) The pugio as a threatening weapon;
W) Chronica Austriae – SS rer. Germ. N.S. 13, Lib. III;
“Hearing that Rodolfo, having immediately grabbed the
edge of the Emperor’s robe and brandishing the pugio,
said: ’Not like this, but a bitter death by the work of my
hands first strikes you down, I will die later.’
And while the ones, who have been mentioned, tried to
take him away, he shouted: ‘Stop! Otherwise soon this
pugio will pierce the Emperor’s heart.’
AUGUSTINUS (PSEUDO) BELGICUS
144) S./R.) D) Weapon for a murder;
W) Sermones ad fraters in eremo commorantes – sermo,
14;
“This is the medicine for vice, the antidote for sin. This is
the pugio with which I struck a Judean who was wrangling
over a Medianite, and the upheaval came to an end;”
XVI CENTURY A.D.: 1170 – 1271 A.D.
LAURENTIUS A BRUNDUSIO
145) S./R.) D) Way of speaking: reason, cutting like a
pugio;
W) Explanatio in Genesim – dissertatio, 5;
“Now then, of grace let us see these definitions and discuss
his reasons which people of his retinue believe to have
struck and pierced Moses and all the ancient philosophers
who followed divine dogmas like very solid pugiones and
piercingly sharp double-bladed gladi.”
102
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
102
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX
DATABASE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The following database concerns the various exemplars
which it has been possible to trace, with the intention of
making it as complete as possible, even if we do not claim
to cover all existing ones.
The sources we have used for this purpose are museum
collections, private collections and publications of various
types.
For the purpose of greater clarity, we have decided to
subdivide it into various sections according to the nature
of the finds and the quality of the information available:
Section A) – exemplars without sheath, divided into three
subsections:
- section A1) – exemplars with various information and
images available;
- section A2) – exemplars with various information
available but no images;
- section A3) – exemplars with only the place of finding
available;
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
Section B) – exemplars complete with sheath,
Section C) – exemplars of only sheath.
(for the definition of the various types please see Chap. 1
– “Origins, Evolution and Classification”)
SECTION A - exemplars without sheath
section A1 - exemplars with various information and
images available
7
8
103
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
103
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
104
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
105
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
105
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
106
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
106
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
107
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
107
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
108
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
108
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
109
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
109
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
110
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
110
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
86
87
88
91
92
93
89
111
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
111
27/05/2012, 16.25
90
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
Find spot
Now kept
typology
measurements
I
Blade 213x56 mm.
II
Tot. length 270 mm,
blade 172x34 mm.
source
1
Arcobriga (Spain)
2
Planura De Bolmir
(Cantabria)
National Archaelogical
Museum in Madrid
Museo de Prehistoria
Y arquelogìa de
Cantabria
3
Aroche (Spain)
Cadice Museum
(Spain)
II
Tot. length 377 mm,
blade 274x57 mm.
4
Tolegassos (Spain)
Museo di Girona
I
Blade length 125 mm
5
La Cendrera (Spain)
Burgos museum
II
Tot. length 295 mm,
blade 184x50 mm
6
Castrillo de la Reina
(Burgos, Spain)
Museo del Monasterio
de Silos
II
Tot. length 260 mm,
blade 144x66 mm
7
Castro de Corporales
Museo de Leòn
II
length 289 mm,
blade 182 mm.
8
Los Myuelos (Palencia)
Palencia museum
(Spain)
I
blade 169x42 mm.
9
necropolis di Eras del
Bosque
private collection
(Eugenio Fontaneda)
I
length 339 mm,
blade 234x46 mm.
10
necropolis of Eras del
Bosque
Valencia museum
(Spain)
II
length 246 mm,
blade 211x50 mm.
11
necropolis of Eras del
Bosque
Valencia museum
(Spain)
I
tot. length 203 mm.
12
unknown
National Archaelogical
Museum in Madrid
II
length 277 mm,
blade 167x39 mm.
13
Numancia (Spain)
Numantino Museum of
Soria (Spain)
I
Total length 195 mm
14
Numancia (Spain)
Numantino Museum of
Soria (Spain)
I
Total length 242 mm
15
Numancia, fortress of
Castillejo (Spain)
I
Total length 210 mm
16
Numancia (Spain)
I
Total length 190 mm
17
Numancia, fortress of
Molino (Spain)
I
2002; “Gladius”,
Total length 175 mm Luik,
XXVIII, 2008
18
Numancia (Spain)
RömischeGermanischen
Zentralmuseum, Mainz
Numantino Museum of
Soria (Spain)
RömischeGermanischen
Zentralmuseum, Mainz
RömischeGermanischen
Zentralmuseum, Mainz
19
Las Minas (Spain)
20
21
I
blade 210x45 mm
Luik, 2002; “Gladius”,
XXVIII, 2008
unknown
I
tot. length 289 mm,
blade 185x64 mm
Fernàndez Ibànez,
2004; “Gladius”,
XXVIII, 2008
Numancia (Spain)
RömischeGermanischen
Zentralmuseum, Mainz
I
length blade 175 mm
Petavonium
Zamora museum
II-III
blade 169x38 mm.
112
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
“Gladius”,
XXVIII,2008
F. Ibànez, 1999;
“Gladius”,
XXVIII,2008
Quesada, 2000;
“Gladius”,
XXVIII,2008
Casas Genover 1989
See “notes”
Abàsolo Álvarez
1977; “Gladius”,
XXVIII,2008
Esparza Arroyo,
1988; “Gladius”,
XXVIII,2008
: Sànchez Palencia
1985;“Gladius”,
XXVIII,2008
Fernàndez Ibànez,
2006; “Gladius”,
XXVIII,2008
“Gladius”,
XXVIII,2008
Fernàndez Ibànez,
2006; “Gladius”,
XXVIII,2008
Fernàndez Ibànez,
2004; “Gladius”,
XXVIII, 2008
“Gladius”, XXVIII,
2008
Lorrio 1997;
“Gladius”, XXVIII,
2008
Lorrio, 1997;
“Gladius”, XXVIII,
2008
Schulten 1927;
“Gladius”, XXVIII,
2008
“Gladius”, XXVIII,
2008
112
27/05/2012, 16.25
Luik, 2002; “Gladius”,
XXVIII, 2008
“Gladius”, XXVIII,
2008
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
Find spot
Now kept
typology
22
Santa Cruz (Spain)
Valladolid museum
II
23
necropolis de Ateabalsa
(Navarra)
Navarra Museum
II-III
24
Monte Castrelo
unknown
II
25
River Waal (NL)
Leeuwen (NL)
II
26
27
Spot for the building of
the National Safe Deposit Museum of London
(London)
Mittelrheinisches
Rhine river (?)
Landesmuseum, Mainz
(GE)
II
measurements
Fernàndez Ibànez,
2002; “Gladius”,
XXVIII, 2008
Fernàndez Ibànez,
total length 320 mm. 2004; “Gladius”,
XXVIII, 2008
Tot. length 26,6 mm, “Gladius”, XXVIII,
blade 170x46 mm.
2008
total length 282 mm Ypey 1960; B.A.R.
(remaining portion) 275, 1985
&
total length 331mm, Pulleston
Price,1873;
B.A.R.
blade 236x48 mm.
275, 1985. see “notes”
blade 223x82 mm.
II
Tot. length 356 mm.
blade 250x69 mm
B.A.R. 275, 1985
total length 334mm,
blade 240x64 mm
total length 178 mm
(remaining portion),
blade 152 x 35 mm.
total length 256 mm,
blade 177x30 mm.
weight: 89 gr
Tot. 290 mm., blade
190 x 56 mm., length
total length 336
mm.,sheath 253 mm.
Tot length. 282 mm.;
blade 250 x 55 mm.,
weight 128 gr.
Tot. length 287 mm.;
blade 182 x 42 mm.,
weight 145 gr.
tot. length 294 mm.,
blade 192x 34 ,
weight 140 gr
B.A.R. 275, 1985
28
unknown
unknown
II
29
Gelligaer (UK)
Gelligaer Nationl
Museum,Wales
II
30
Vindonissa (Sw)
Vindonissa Museum
II
31
Lorenzberg (GE)
unknown
II
32
Hod Hill (UK)
British Museum,
London
II
33
unknown
private collection
I
34
unknown
private collection
I
35
Annecy (France)
private collection
I
36
Southern Europe (?)
private collection
I
tot. length 280 mm.
37
unknown
private collection
II
tot. length 270 mm.,
blade 210x 37 (?)
38
unknown
private collection
II
tot. length 345 mm
39
Hod Hill (UK)
British museum,
London
II
blade 239 x52 mm.
40
Desa- Romania
private collection
III
tot. length 395 mm.,
blade 270x 69 mm.
weight 345 gr.
41
Southern Europe
(Balkans)
private collection
I
tot. length 265 mm.
42
unknown
private collection
II
tot. length. 395 mm
113
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
113
source
27/05/2012, 16.25
B.A.R. 275, 1985
Fellmann 1966; B.A.R.
275, 1985 see “notes”
Ulbert 1965; B.A.R.
275, 198
British museum
database
never published see
“notes”
never published
never published
auction house
Hermann Historica,
auction n. 52
auction house
Hermann Historica,
auction n. 53
auction house
Hermann Historica ,
52th auction
British Museum
database
never published
Hermann Historica
auction house, 51th
auction
Hermann Historica
auction house, 57th
auction
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
Find spot
Now kept
typology
43
unknown
private collection
II
44
unknown
private collection
II
45
unknown
private collection
III
46
Vindonissa fortress
Vindonissa Museum
- Brugg- Swiss
II
47
Vindonissa fortress
Vindonissa Museum
- Brugg- Swiss
II
48
unknown
private collection
III
49
Castra Cecilia, Spain
50
Kupa river, Sisak
(Croatia)
51
unknown
52
river Kupa, Sisak,
Croatia
53
river Kupa, Sisak
(Croatia)
RömischGermanisches
Zentralmuseum
- Mainz
Arheološki muzej u
Zagrebu – Zagreb
(Croatia)
National museum
ConcordiesePortogruaro (IT)
Arheološki muzej u
Zagrebu – Zagreb
(Croatia)
Arheološki muzej u
Zagrebu – Zagreb
(Croatia)
54
unknown
55
measurements
source
Hermann Historica
auction house, 54th
auction
auction house
tot. length. 380 mm. Hermann Historica,
57th auction
auction house
tot. length. 46 cm.
Hermann Historica ,
44th -57th auction
tot. length 300 mm. C. Unz, “Katalog
blade : 199x40 mm. der Militaria aus
weight: 88 gr.
Vindonissa”, 1997
tot. length 268 mm. C. Unz, “Katalog
blade: 192x38 weight der Militaria aus
90 gr.
Vindonissa”, 1997
“Römer-Zwische
unknown
Alpen und Nordmeer”P. Von Zabern
tot. length 413 mm.
II
unknown
III
Tot. length 365 mm,
length blade 265 mm
II
length tot. 330 mm.
www.Roma-Vitrix.com
II
length tot. 300 mm,
blade 220x50 mm
II
length tot. 280 mm,
blade 230 mm.
private collection
III
length tot. 56 cm,
blade 38,2 cm. ca.
Hoffiller 1912;
“Militaria Sisciensia”
2004
Hoffiller 1912;
“Militaria Sisciensia”
2004
Christie’s 5524th
auction,
2004
near Sisak, Croatia
Arheološki muzej u
Zagrebu – Zagreb
(Croatia)
?
Tot. length 390 mm.,
length blade 260
“Militaria Sisciensia”
2004 see “notes”
56
Hedemunden, Welt,
Germany
unknown
II
unknown
www.goettingerland.de
57
unknown
III
unknown
www.romancoins.info
58
Haltern (Germany)
Munich Archeological
Museum (Germany)
LWL Römermuseum
Haltern am
See(Germany)
II
unknown
mr. Rien Bongers
59
unknown
private collection
III
length tot. 380 mm.
60
Numancia
unknown
I
length tot. 189 mm.,
blade 178x46 mm
61
Oberaden (Germany)
unknown
I
length tot. 295 mm.,
blade 188x48 mm.
62
Kunzing
unknown
III
length tot. 420 mm,
blade 287x68 mm.
114
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
114
27/05/2012, 16.25
www.Roma-Vitrix.com
“Militaria Sisciensia”
2004
Bonhams auction
house, 16853th auction
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
Find spot
Now kept
typology
measurements
63
Numancia
unknown
I
tot length.276 mm,
blade 223x45 mm.
64
Kunzing
unknown
III
length tot. 416 mm.,
blade 287x91 mm.
65
Eining
unknown
II
length tot. 343 mm.,
blade 236x59 mm.
66
Dangstetten (Germany)
unknown
II
length tot. 190 mm.,
blade 170x50 mm.
67
Eining
unknown
II
length tot. 312 mm.,
blade 216x54 mm.
68
Oberaden (Germany)
unknown
I
length tot. 270 mm,
blade 160x50 mm.
69
Rißtissen (Germany)
Provincial museum
G.M. Kam, Nijmegen
II
length tot. 250 mm.,
blade 230x60 mm.
70
Mainz (Germany)
unknown
II
length tot. 260 mm,
blade 240x50 mm.
71
Kingsholm (UK )
unknown
II
length tot.32 0 mm. ,
blade 220x40 mm.
72
Devon (UK )
private collection
II
73
Buciumi (Romania)
unknown
III
74
Tuchyna (Slovakia)
unknown
III
75
Nijmegen (?)
Provincial museum
G.M. kam (Nijmegen)
II
76
Gravenvoeren (Limburg.
Belgium)
Koninklijke Musea
Voor Knust (Bruxell)
II
77
Nijmegen (?)
Provincial museum
G.M. kam (Nijmegen)
II
78
Alesia (France)
unknown
79
Kingsholm
80
source
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
length tot: 330 mm
blade length 220 mm- D. X. Kenney
width (max) 37 mm
& Coulston,
length tot. 270 mm, Bishop
“Roman
Military
blade 180x50 mm
Equipment”, 2006
unknown
E. Krekovic, Journal
of Roman Military
Equipment n. 5, 1994
Length remaining
portion: 248 mm,
blade 232 x 49 mm.
length tot. 308 mm. ,
blade 204x50 mm.
Length remaining
portion):275 mm,
blade 247 x 44 mm.
Ypey 1960; B.A.R.
275, 1985
I
length tot. 209 mm.,
width 57 mm
British Museum,
London
II
total length 352 mm.
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
blade 249x52
mm.weight: 149 gr.
81
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
tot. length 278 mm.
blade 203x45 mm.
82
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
tot. length 320
mm.blade 245x46
mm.
Bericht der RömischGermanischen
Kommission 76 (1995)
British museum
database
C. Unz, “Katalog
der Militaria aus
Vindonissa”
C. Unz, “Katalog
der Militaria aus
Vindonissa”
C. Unz, “Katalog
der Militaria aus
Vindonissa”
115
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
115
27/05/2012, 16.25
J.R.M.E.S.n. 7, 1996
A.M. Gerhartl
“J.R.M.E.S” n. 1, 1990
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
section A1 - exemplars with various information and images available
Find spot
Now kept
typology
83
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
84
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
85
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
86
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
87
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
88
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
89
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
90
Vindonissa
Vindonissa Museum
II
91
unknown
private collection
II
92
unknown
private collection
II
93
Saalburg (Germany)
Saalburg Museum
(Germany)
II/III
measurements
tot. length 380 mm.
blade 293x85 mm
weight: 65 gr.
tot. length 278 mm.
blade 194x39 mm
weight: 113 gr.
tot. length 218 mm.
blade 188x32 mm.
weight: 66 gr.
tot. length 208 mm.
blade 198x35 mm.
weight: 89 gr.
C. Unz, “Katalog
der Militaria aus
Vindonissa”
C. Unz, “Katalog
der Militaria aus
Vindonissa”
C. Unz, “Katalog
der Militaria aus
Vindonissa”
C. Unz, “Katalog
der Militaria aus
Vindonissa”
C. Unz, “Katalog
blade 200x33 mm.
der Militaria aus
Vindonissa”
C. Unz, “Katalog
blade 222x31 mm.
der Militaria aus
Vindonissa”
tot. length 207 mm. C. Unz, “Katalog
blade 191x37 mm.
der Militaria aus
weight: 74 gr.
Vindonissa”
C. Unz, “Katalog
blade 164x33 mm.
der Militaria aus
weight: 57 gr.
Vindonissa”
auction house
Historica
total length: 260 mm. Hermann
(Munich-Germany),
44th auction
total length: 330 mm.
blade: width max: 60 never published
mm- length 220 mm.
weight: 255 gr.
from the museum
unknown
display
116
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
116
source
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
section A2 – exemplars with various information available but no images
Find spot
Now kept
typology
measurements
source
94
Dangstetten
Unknown
?
blade 160 mm., blade
width 50 mm.
Fingerlin, 1972; B.A.R.
275, 1985
95
Oberaden
museo di Dortmund
?
blade 143 x 55 mm.
Wells, 1972; B.A.R.
275, 1985
96
Haltern
RomischeGermanische
museum of Haltern
II
B.A.R. 275; 1985
97
Augusburg-Oberhausen
unknown
II
98
Augusburg-Oberhausen
unknown
II
99
Aurerberg
unknown
II
blade (estim.) 220
mm., x 50 mm.
total length 301 mm.,
blade 210 x 40 mm.
total length 232 mm.
(remaining portion),
blade 175 x 29 mm.
total length 285 mm.,
blade 200 x 35 mm.
100
Velsen
unknown
II
unknown
Ulbert, 1975; B.A.R.
275, 1985
Schimmer, 1979,
B.A.R. 275, 1985
101
Colchester
Colchester Castle
museum
II
length tot. 301 mm.
(remaining portion),
blade 207 x 60 mm.
Hawkes & Hull, 1947;
B.A.R. 275, 1985
102
Mainz
unknown
II
blade 200 x40 mm.
Beharens & Brenner,
1911; B.A.R. 275,
1985
103
Kingsholm
British Museum,
London
II
Total length 352 mm.
B.A.R. 275, 1985
104
Rißtissen (Germany)
unknown
II
Ulbert, 1970; B.A.R.
275, 1985
105
Straubing
unknown
II
106
river Kupa (Croatia)
Sisak
II
107
river Kupa (Croatia)
Sisak
II
total length 240 mm
(remaining portion),
blade 235 x 65 mm.
total length 300 mm,
blade 210 mm.
total length 285 mm
(remaining portion),
blade 230 x 46 mm.
total length 300 mm
(remaining portion),
blade 220 x50 mm.
Hoffiller 1912; B.A.R.
275, 1985
108
Dunafoldvar, into the
Danube
Dunafoldvar (Hungary)
II
total length 326 mm
Thomas 1969
109
Nordendorf (Germany)
unknown
II
total length 320 mm
110
River Sâone (Fr)
Alleriot
II
total length 355 mm,
blade 238x60 mm.
Lindenschmidt,1900;
B.A.R. 275, 1985
Bonnamour & Ferroux,
1969; B.A.R. 275,
1985
111
Mainz
Mittelrheinisches
Landesmuseum, Mainz
II
total length 360mm,
blade 250 mm.
B.A.R. 275, 1985
112
Rhine river
unknown
II
total length 320 mm
Lindenschmidt 1881;
B.A.R. 275, 1985
113
Mainz
Mittelrheinisches
Landesmuseum, Mainz
II
total length 290 mm,
blade 200x53 mm.
B.A.R. 275, 1985
114
Mainz
Mittelrheinisches
Landesmuseum, Mainz
II
total length 362mm,
blade 260x75 mm.
115
Rhine river
Mittelrheinisches
Landesmuseum, Mainz
II
blade 246x57 mm.
116
Rhine river
unknown
II
blade 245x50 mm.
Mainzer
Zeitschrift,1917;
B.A.R. 275, 1985
Lindenschmidt 1900;
B.A.R. 275, 1985
Mainzer
Zeitschrift,1917;
B.A.R. 275, 1985
117
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
117
27/05/2012, 16.25
Wells, 1972; B.A.R.
275, 1985
Hubner, 1973; B.A.R.
275, 1985
Walke 1965; B.A.R.
275, 1985
Hoffiller 1912; B.A.R.
275, 1985
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
section A2 – exemplars with various information available but no images
Find spot
Now kept
117
Rösebeck (Germany)
118
Nijmegen (NL)
119
River Waal, località
Leeuwen (NL)
Germaniche Nationalmuseum, Norimberga
(GE)
Rijksmuseum G.M.
Kam, Nijmegen
Rijksmuseum Van
Oudheden, Leiden
(NL)
120
Vechten (NL)
unknown
121
Vechten (NL)
122
Vechten (NL)
123
Vechten (NL)
124
Colchester (UK)
125
unknown
126
unknown
typology
Rijksmuseum Van
Oudheden, Leiden
(NL)
Rijksmuseum Van
Oudheden, Leiden
(NL)
Rijksmuseum Van
Oudheden, Leiden
(NL)
British Museum,
London
Lisbon National Archaelogical museum
Museo Monografico
de castro de Chao San
Matìn
measurements
source
II
total length 382mm,
blade 280x59 mm.
total length 300 mm
(remaining portion),
blade 220 x50 mm.
II
total length 228 mm
(remaining portion)
B.A.R. 275, 1985
II
total length 330mm,
blade 224x54 mm.
B.A.R. 275, 1985
II
total length 336mm,
blade 224x60 mm.
Ypey 1961; B.A.R.
275, 1985
II
total length 263mm,
blade 215x47 mm.
B.A.R. 275, 1985
II
total length 303mm,
blade 204x54 mm.
B.A.R. 275, 1985
II
total length 303mm,
blade 214x54 mm.
B.A.R. 275, 1985
II
total length 327mm
B.A.R. 275, 1985
III
total length 280 mm.
?
length tot. 284 mm,
blade 177x49 mm.
“Gladius”, XXVIII,
2008
Fernàndez Ibànez,2006; “Gladius”,
XXVIII,2008
SECTION A3 - exemplars with only the place of finding available
127
128
129
130
131
132
133-138
139
140
141
142-143
144-156
157-159
160-163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171-172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184-185
USK (UK)
Hedegård (Denmark)
Rijnwaarden (Nederland), Rhine river
Melun, river Seine (France)
Torre de Palma, Portugal
Monte Castrelo, Portugal
Oberaden (Germany) – 6 specimens
Rösenbeck (Denmark)
Moers-Asberg (Germany)
Neuss (Germany)
Köln (Germany) – 2 specimens
Mainz,l Rhine river (Ge) – 13 specimens
Mainz (Germany) -3 specimens
Auerberg (Germany) - 4 specimens
Novara (Italy)
Abtei Ladiner Tal (Italy)
Carnuntum (Austria)
Budapest (Hungary)
Dunaföldvàr (Hungary)
Hallischen (Germany)
Caerleon (UK)
Colchester (UK) -2 specimens
Arnhem-Meinerswijk (Nederland)
Saint-Pieters-Voeren (Belgium)
Rheingönheim (Germany)
Rottweil (Germany)
Basilea (Swiss)
Curel (France)
Nice (France)
Oberammergau (Germany)
Magdalensberg (Austria)
Globic bei Šmarjeta (Slovakia)
Alesia (France)
Bregenz (Au)
118
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
118
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
SECTION B – exemplars complete with sheath
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
119
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
119
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
SECTION B – exemplars complete with sheath
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
120
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
120
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
SECTION B – exemplars complete with sheath
202
203
206
204
205
207
208
121
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
121
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
SECTION B – exemplars complete with sheath
209
210
211
212
213
214
122
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
122
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
SECTION B – exemplars complete with sheath
215
216
Find spot
Now kept
Typology
measurements
source
186
Buciumi (Romania)
unknown
II
unknown
187
Colonia (Germany)
II
unknown
188
Rhine river
II
unknown
www.romancoins.info
189
Britain
unknown
Mittelrheinisches
Landesmuseum, Mainz
Colchester Castle museum
M. Feugere -“Weapons
of Romans”; N. Gudea
1975
www.romancoins.info
II
unknown
190
river Kupa, Sisak
(Croatia)
Arheološki muzej u
Zagrebu – Zagreb (Croatia)
II
tot. length 330 mm.
191
river Kupa, Sisak
(Croatia)
Arheološki muzej u
Zagrebu – Zagreb (Croatia)
II
tot. length 330 mm.
192
Oberammergau
(Germany)
Archäologische
Staatssammlung, München
II
tot length. 235 mm.
(remaining portion)
www.romancoins.info
Hoffiller 1912;
“Militaria Sisciensia”
2004
Hoffiller 1912;
“Militaria Sisciensia”
2004
Römer-Zwische Alpen
und Nordmeer”-V. P.
Von Zabern
193
Aalen (Germany)
Limesmuseum Aalen
(Germany)
194
Mainz (Germany)
Landesmuseum - MainzGermany
II
tot. length 380 mm.
195
Mainz (Germany),
Rhine river
Römische-Germanischen
Zentral-Museum, Mainz
II
tot length. 259 mm.
sheath 215 mm.
196
Usk (Great Britain)
unknown
II
length with sheath
315 mm.
Lengths:
II- III blade: 259 mm. ca
sheath: 276 mm.
123
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
123
27/05/2012, 16.25
www.roma-vitrix.com
“Traiano-Ai confini
dell’Impero” - Electa
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Ian R. Scott, “British
Archaeological Report”,
n. 275, 1985
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
SECTION B – exemplars complete with sheath
Find spot
Now kept
typology
measurements
source
197
Velsen (Nederland)
unknown
II
length with sheath
395 mm
198
Hod Hill (Great
Britain)
British Museum, London
II
sheath 253 mm
pugio 336 mm.
199
Hedegard (Denmark)
unknown
II
length tot 350 mm
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
(redrawn by dr. J. Morel)
The Trustees of The
British Museum
Peter S. Wells “la parola
ai barbari”
200
necropolis of Eras del
Bosque
private collection (mr.
Eugenio Fontaneda)
II
length tot. 246 mm,
“Gladius”, XXVIII,2008
201
Ultrecht (Nederland),
auxiliary camp
Unknown
II
Unknown
Andreas Tiel, “Journal
of Roman Military
studies”,5, 1994
202
Haltern (Germany)
Munich Archaelogical
museum (Germany)
II
unknown
mr. Rien Bongers
203
Galles (UK)
National Museum of Wales,
Cardiff (UK)
II
tot length. 335 mm.,
blade 230x50 mm.
204
unknown
Private collection
II
lengths pugio 350 m
m.sheath 260 mm.
E.M. Chapman,
“catalogue of Roman
Military Equipment in
the National Museum of
Wales”, 2005
auction house Hermann
Historica (Ge) 44th
auction
205
Ercolaneum (Italy)
Naples Archaeological
museum
?
unknown
Indeterminatesee “notes”
206
unknown
private collection
III
207
unknown
Munchen-haltern museum
III
length tot. with
sheath: 450 mm.
unknown
208
Speyer
unknown
III
tot length 334 mm.
blade 244x58 mm.
209
Tuchyna (Slovakia)
unknown
III
length tot.400 mm.,
blade 324x76 mm.
210
London
(Copthall Court)
Museum of London
III
tot. length 417 mm.
blade 286x82 mm.
211
London (UK )
unknown
III
length tot.440 mm.,
blade 300x73 mm.
212
Kunzing (Germany)
unknown
III
Several- unknown
213
unknown
private collection
III
lengths: pugio .295
mm. sheath 112 mm.
M. Junkelmann, 2000
Sammlung A. Guttmann
www.Roma-vitrix.com
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Michel Feugère,
Weapons of Romans”,
2002
Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
T. Fisher, “‘Zwei neue
Metal-lsammelfunde aus
Künzing” Spurensuche
auction house Hermann
Historica (Germany),
44th auction
214
unknown
Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum – Mainz
II
unknown
mr.Künzl
215
northern France
(unknow spot)
Römische-Germanischen
Zentra-Museum di Mainz
II
unknown
M. Feugere- “Weapons
of Romans” pag. 126127
216
Titelberg – Pètange
(Lux)
Koninkeelijke Musea Voor
Knust (Bruxell)
II
Length
345 mm with sheath,
314 mm. w/o sheath;
blade 206x61 mm.
B.A.R. 275, 1985;
L. Vanden Berghe in
J.R.M.E.S. 2001/2
124
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
124
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
SECTION C– exemplars of only sheath
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
F11
F12
F13
F14
F15
125
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
125
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
SECTION C– exemplars of only sheath
F16
F17
F18
F19
F20
F21
F22
F23
F24
F25
F26
F27
F28
F29
F30
126
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
126
27/05/2012, 16.25
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
SECTION C– exemplars of only sheath
F31
F32
F33
F34
F35
F36
F37
F38
F39
F40
127
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
127
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
SECTION C– exemplars of only sheath
Find spot
Now kept
typology
measurements
source
F1
unknown
unknown
II
unknown
Provincial museum
G.M. Kam, Nijmegen
Archäologisches
Museum Carnuntinum
- Bad Deutsch-Altenburg-AU)
Archäologisches
Museum Carnuntinum
- Bad Deutsch-Altenburg-AU)
Archäologisches
Museum Carnuntinum
- Bad Deutsch-Altenburg-AU)
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
Concordiese nazional
Museum (PortogruaroItaly)
Rijksmuseum Van
Oudheden, Leiden
(NL)
Carnuntinum museum
(Bad Deutsch-Altenburg, AU)
II
unknown
M. Feugere- “Weapons of
Romans”, pag. 126-127
M. Feugere- “Weapons of
Romans”
F2
Leeuween (Nederland)
F3
Carnuntum fortress
II
lengt 16,5 cm
www.Roma-vitrix.com
F4
Carnuntum fortress
II
length 27,1 cm
www.Roma-vitrix.com
F5
Carnuntum fortress
II
length 20,3 cm.
www.roma-vitrix.com
F6
Vindonissa fortress
II
length 18,4 cm
II
length 24,3 cm
II
length 23,2 cm
II
length 7,9 cm
II
length 13,6 cm
II
length 7,5 cm
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa”
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa
F7
Vindonissa fortress
F8
Vindonissa fortress
F9
Vindonissa fortress
F10
Vindonissa fortress
F11
Vindonissa fortress
F12
Unknown
II
length 27 cm.
www.roma-vitrix.com
F13
Unknown
II
unknown
indeterminate
F14
Carnuntum fortress
II
unknown
F15
Dunafoldvar (Hungary)
unknown
II
unknown
F16
Alleriot (France)
unknown
II
unknown
F17
Leeuwen (Nederland)
unknown
II
unknown
F18
Aalen (Germany)
II
length 228 mm. www.roma-vitrix.com
F19
Mogontiagum fortress
(Mainz)
Limesmuseum Aalen
(Germany)
Landesmuseum
– Mainz (Germany)
II
230 mm.
www.roma-vitrix.com
F20
Lincoln (Great Britain)
unknown
II
unknown
F21
Lincoln (Great Britain)
unknown
II
unknown
F22
Richborough (Great
Britain)
unknown
II
unknown
British Archaeological
Report, n. 275, 1985
British Archaeological
Report, n. 275, 1985
British Archaeological
Report, n. 275, 1985
128
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
128
27/05/2012, 16.25
Exhibition catalogue
“Legionsadler und
Druidenstab, F. Humer
M. Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
M. Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
M. Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
SECTION C– exemplars of only sheath
Find spot
Now kept
typology
measurements
source
F23
Usk (Great Britain)
unknown
II
unknown
unknown
II
unknown
Loughor (Great Britain)
unknown
II
unknown
F26
Usk (Great Britain)
National Museum of
Wales, Cardiff;
II
length tot. 213
x 50 mm.
F27
Hod Hill (Great Britain)
unknown
II
unknown
F28
unknown
British Museum,
London
II
unknown
F29
Hod Hill
unknown
II
unknown
F30
Galles (UK)
National Museum of
Wales, Cardiff (UK)
II
tot. length
195x64 mm.
F31
Speyer (Germany)
unknown
III
length 287
mm.
British Archaeological
Report, n. 275, 1985
British Archaeological
Report, n. 275, 1985
British Archaeological
Report, n. 275, 1985
B.A.R., n. 275, 1985; E.
M. Chapman, “catalogue of
Roman Military Equipment
in the National Museum of
Wals”
M. Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
The Trustees of The British
Museum
M. Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
Evan M. Chapman,
“catalogue of Roman
Military Equipment in the
National Museum of Wales”
Bishop & Coulston, “Roman
Military Equipment”, 2006
F24
Waddon Hill (Great
Britain)
F25
F32
Xanten (Germany)
II
unknown
indeterminate
F33
Mainz (Germany)
II
unknown
indeterminate
F34
Rhine river, Mainz (GE)
Römermuseum,
Xanten
Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum - Mainz-Germany
Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum - Mainz-Germany
II
unknown
F35
Exter, UK
unknown
I/ II
unknown
F36
Vindinissa fortress
F37
Vindinissa fortress
F38
Vindinissa fortress
F39
Vindinissa fortress
F40
Vindinissa fortress
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
Vindonissa Museum
(Brugg- Swiss)
NOTES:
specimens n. 4 and 33:
specimen n. 26:
specimens n. 30 and 55:
specimen n. 205:
specimen n. n.c.1:
II
Length 29,4 cm
II
Length 13,9 cm
II
Length 18,7 cm
II
Length 12,9 cm
II
Length 14,5 cm
possible celtiberian manufacture;
uncommon handle, perhaps not original but afterwards fitted;
the handle, the guard and blade let us suppose these specimens could be deriving from a
re-utilization of a damaged gladius;
the very uncommon handle let be doubtful the classification as a pugio;
not original guard.
129
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
129
M. Bishop & Coulston,
“Roman Military
Equipment”, 2006
P. Connolly, “Pilum,
gladius and pugio in the late
Republic”, J.R.M.E.S. n. 8
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa”
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa”
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa”
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa”
C. Unz “Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa”
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
specimens known by authors after the final release of the book
nc1
nc2
Find spot
Now kept
typology
nc1
unknown
Private collection
II
nc2
unknown
Private collection
II
nc3
unknown
Private collection
II
nc3
measurements
Length 329 mm.; blade length 216 mm.,
width 29 to 51 mm; midrib 5,5 mm;
weight 225 gr.
Length 348 mm; blade length 206 mm.,
width 36 to 64 mm; midrib5,9 mm;
weight 222 gr.
Length 445 mm.; blade length 305 mm.,
width 31 to 45 mm; midrib 4,5 mm;
weight 222 gr.
130
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
130
27/05/2012, 16.25
source
never published
see “notes”
never published
auction house Hermann Historica,
63th auction
CHAPTER IX - DATABASE OF ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS
STATISTICS
Number of specimens on regard the typology
I typology specimens:
II typology specimens:
III typology specimens:
unclassifiable specimens:
TOTAL
24
108
19
68
219
typology I
typology II
typology III
uncertain
total
Hispania
13
9
0
62
24
Gaul
3
5
0
4
11
Britain
0
14
2
4
20
Germany
2
50
0
19
71
Italy
0
0
0
1
1
Raetia
0
19
2
5
26
Noricum
0
0
3
1
4
typology I
typology II
typology III
uncertain
total
Pannonia
0
1
0
2
1
Moesia
0
0
1
0
1
Dalmatia
0
8
0
1
9
Greece
0
0
0
0
0
Asia
0
0
0
0
0
Africa
0
0
0
0
0
Dacia
0
0
0
2
2
131
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
131
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
132
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
132
27/05/2012, 16.25
CONCLUSIONS
At the end of the course of study of our weapon what ultimately emerges is that it is one of the fruits of the exceptional
pragmatism of the Roman Army.
In fact, we notice that as far as “when” is concerned, it was exclusively used during the period it was useful to them; as far
as “where” is concerned, it was used in the territories in which the miles confronted enemies who made its use efficient;
finally, as far as “who was equipped with it” is concerned, we have pointed out that only those soldiers possessed it who
had real necessity to use it in combat.
Every element converges in its practicality and in the maximization of its use, which is at the base of both our weapon
and the Roman Army.
Considering the remarkable amount of information which has arisen, we would like to conclude by summarising the main
points:
● from a historical point of view:
- Its roots are to be found directly in the Celtiberian bi-globular dagger;
- It first appeared at the end of the II century B.C., probably within the cohortal legion, as a response to the necessity
to optimise the individual armament of the legionary, with its period of maximum splendour and diffusion around
the I century A.D.;
- During the historical period of its existence it evolved in three main types: the I (or Republican), the II (or Imperial)
and the III (or final);
- Its efficiency was such that it became proverbial in time, and writers both of the time and subsequently used it as
an example of infallibility;
- It was not equally distributed in all the provinces of the Empire, but almost exclusively concentrated in those
which confined with populations of Celtic/Germanic stock (Rheine-High Danube limes and low Britannia) while
virtually absent in almost all the others;
- Only the legionary and auxiliary heavy infantry were equipped with it and, in the military hierarchy, only to the
rank of centurion;
- Its main function was that of a war weapon, complementary to the gladius, to be used in situations of close combat
and against the type of enemy who made it useful;
● from a technological point of view:
- Two main types of construction technology can be identified: “composite” and “tight insertion”;
- “Composite” technology was particularly complex, to the point of being typical only of this weapon, with the only
exception being the Celtiberian dagger from which it descended;
- The blades were of a rather small size at first, but they progressively increased until they became very long and
exceptionally wide;
- During the Republican and final period the weapons and their sheaths appeared austere and plain; in the Imperial
Age, instead, they were richly decorated, even with precious materials;
- Its decoration during Period II, above all on the sheaths, often had a specific symbolic meaning or one of political
propaganda;
133
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
133
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
134
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
134
27/05/2012, 16.25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- BRIZZI G., « Il guerriero, l’ Oplita, il Legionario » Ed.
Il Mulino , 2002 ;
- BROUQUIER-REDDÈ V. ,”L’ equioment militaire d’
Alèsia d’ après les nouvelles recherches” , Journal of
Roman Military studies, st.8 1997;
- Cagniart P.,”The late republican army (146-30 BC)”.
In: Erdkamp, P. (a cura di), A companion to the Roman
army, Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, 2011;
- Carrié J-M., “Il soldato” (traduzione F. Gonnelli). In:
Giardina, A. (a cura di), L’uomo romano, Roma-Bari,
ed. Laterza,1993.
- Cheesman G.L., “The auxilia of the Roman imperial
army”, Roma, ed. L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1968;
- CONNOLY P. “Greece and Rome at war”; ed
Greenbooks;
- CONNOLY P., “Pilum, gladius and pugio in the late
Republic”, Journal of Roman Military Equipment
Stdies, n. 8, pag. 41-57;
- CONNOLY P., “The roman fighting technique deduced
from armour and weaponry”, Roman Frontier Studies,
Exeter, 1989;
- CORNELL T. , “The beginnings of Rome. Italy and
Rome from age to the Punic wars”,Londra 1995;
- COULSTON C., “Military equipment and Identity of
Roman soldier s. Proceedings of the fourth Roman
Military equipment conference”, BAR 394;
- COUSSIN P., “Les armes romaines : essai sur les origins
et l’ evolution des armes individuelles du legionnaire
romain”, Paris, Honorè Champion, pag. 302-313;
- COWAN ROSS, “Roman legionary 58 B.C. – AD 69”,
Osprey;
- CZARNECKA K.: “Two newly-found roman swords
from the Preworsk culture cemetery in Oblin, Siedlce
District, Poland”, J.R.M.E.S 3, 1992;
- D’Amato R. e Sumner G.,”Arms and armour of the
imperial Roman soldier. From Marius to Commodus,
112 BC – AD 192”, London, ed. Frontline Books. 2009;
- DAWSON M., “a review of the equipment of the roman
army of Dacia”, in Roman Military Equipment: the
source of evidence, BAR International series, 476;
- DOBSON B., “The Roman army: wartime or peacetime
army?”, In: Eck, W.; Wolff, H. (a cura di), Heer und
Integrationspolitik. Die römischen Militärdiplome als
historische Quelle, Köln: Böhlau, 1986;
- Durry M. ,”Les cohorts prétoriennes”, Paris: Éditions de
Boccard, 1938;
- DUVAL A. , Les armes de Alèsia au musèe del Antiquitès
nationales’. Rev. Hist. Des Armèes 2, 1987;
- EDIT B. THOMAS, “Helme, schilde, dolche”,
Akademiai Kiado, Budapest;
- EXNER K., “Rőmische Dolchsheiden mit Taushieren
und Email-verzieerung”, Germania 24, pag. 22-28;
- FEUGERE M., “Weapons of Romans”, ed. Tempus,
1997 – 2007. 1, pag. 99-107;
- FEUGERE M. “L’equipment militaire d’époque
républicaine en Gaule”, J.R.M.E.S 5,1994;
- FEUGERE M. “Les armes des romains de la République
a l’antiquité tardive”, Paris;
- FEUGERE M., “L’Equipement militarire romain dans
le Départment de la Loire”, Cahiers Arcélogiques de la
Loire, 3;
- GERHART-WITTEVEEN A. M., “Survey of sword
and daggers in the Provinciaal Museum G.M. Kam,
Nijmegen”, Journal of Roman Military Equipment
● Classical Bibliography (limited to the authors not
dealt with in Chap. “VIII – Classical Bibliographical
Citations”)
- AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS: Res Gestae
- APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS: Storia Romana
- ARRIANUS: Ars Tactica
- JULIUS CAESAR : De Bello Gallico
- JULIUS CAESAR: De Bello Civili
- JOSEPUS FLAVIUS: De bello Judaico
- LUCIUS CASSIUS DIO COCCEIANUS: Roman
History
- MAURICE: Strategikon
- ONASANDRUS PLATONICUS : Strategikon
- POLIBIUS: Historiae
- SALLUSTIO GAIUS CRISPUS: Bellum Iugurthinum
- SEXTUS JULIUS FRONTINUS: Stratagemata
- TACITUS : Historiae
- TITUS LIVIUS: Ab Urbe Condita Libri
- VEGETIUS FLAVIUS RENATUS: Epitoma Rei
Militaris
● Contemporary Bibliography
ON THE WEAPONARY OF THE ROMAN ARMY,
with particular reference to edge weapons
- AIELLO V., “le armi nel mondo tardo antico”;
- ALPTEKIN ORANSAY, “Roman military equipment at
Arycanda”, J.R.M.E.S. 12/13, 2001-2002;
- ADCOCK F., “The roman art of war under the
Republic”, Cambridge Mass. 1940;
- BANDINELLI R. BIANCHI, “Il Maestro delle imprese
di Traiano”, ed Electa, 2003;
- BIRBOSKI M., “Typologie und chronologie der
ringknaufschwerter”;
- BIRBOSKI M, “Römische Schwerter im Gebiet des
europäischen Barbaricum”, J.R.M.E.S.,5, 1994;
- BISHOP M.C., “Excavation at roman Corbridge, the
Hoard”, HBMCE, archeological report n. 7;
- BISHOP M.C., “The military fabrica and the production
of arms in early principate”, 1985;
- BISHOP M.C., “cavalry equipment of the Roman army
in the first century A.D.”, 1988,
- BISHOP M.C., “a decorated dagger scabbard from
Corbridge, Northumberland”, arma 1,20,
- BISHOP M.C., “a new flavian military site at Roecliffe”,
Brit XXXVI;
- BISHOP M.C. & J.C. COULSTON, “Roman Military
Equipment from the Punic wars to the fall of Rome” ,
Oxbow Book;
- BONNAMOUR L., “un poignard romain trouvè dans la
Saone” , Gallia 27 pag 178-185;
- BONNAMOUR L., “Les armes romaines de la Saône:
état des découvertes et données récentes de fouilles”,
J.R.M.E.S.,5, 1994;
- BOUBE-PICCOT, C., »Les bronzes antiques du Maroc,
4. L’équipment militaire et l’armament » Paris: Éditions
Recherches sur les Civilisations,1994 ;
135
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
135
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
Studies;
- GOLDSWORTHY ADRIAN, “Storia completa dell’
esercito romano”, Logos;
- GOLDSWORTHY ADRIAN, “Roman warfare”,
Londra 2000;
- GOLDSWORTHY ADRIAN, “The roman Army at war,
100 b. C. – 200 a.D.”, Oxford 1992;
- GONZALEZ J.R, “Historia del las legiones romanas”,
Madrid 2003;
- GRIFFITHS N. A., “a gladius from Dorset, in the
Ashmolean Museum”, Britannia, 10, 1979;
- H. RUSSELL ROBINSON, “The armour of Imperial
Rome”, ed. Purnell Book Service,1975;
- HAZELL P. “The pedite gladius , The Antiquaries
Journal”, 1981, vol. 61 , pagg. 73-83;
- HOLDER P., “Studies in the auxilia of the roman army
from Cesar to Traian”, BAR 70;
- IBAŇEZ C. F., “Equipamiento armamentisco del
legionario altoimperila”, Espacio,Tiempo y forma,
Serie II, Historia antigua, t. 16, 2003;
- ISTENIČ J., “A roman late-republican gladius from
the river Ljubljanica (Slovenia),Arheološki vestnik, 51,
2000;
- JAMES S., “Excavation at Dura- Europos 1928-1937:
final report”, London;
- JIMENO A., “Numancia, Guìa del yacimiento” Soria,
Asosacion de Amigos del Museo Numantino;
- JUNKELLMANN M., “Panis militaris: die ernahrung
des romischen soldaten oder der grundstoff der macht”,
Mainz am Rhein 1997;
- KAVANG DE PRADO E. & QUESADA SANZ F.,
“Pugio Hispaniensis between Celtiberia and Rome.
Current research and analysis of the costructionot the
sheats”, in Limes XX, Proceeding of the 20th international
congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Leon, 2006;
- KAZANSKI M.; “L’equipment et le matériel militaires
au Bas-Empire en Gaule du nord et du l’est”, Revue du
Nor-Archeologie, 57;
- KAVANG DE PRADO E. & QUESADA SANZ F.,
“Pugio Hispaniensis between Celtiberia and Rome.
Current research and analysis of the costructionot
the sheats”, in Limes XX, Proceeding of the 20th
international congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Leon,
2006;
- KEPPIE L., “The making of Roman army from Republic
to Empire”, London 1984;
- KREKOVIC E., “Military equipment on the territory of
Slovakia”, Journal of Roman Military Studies, n. 5, pag.
211-225;
- LE BOECH Y., “l’ esercito romano, ed. Carocci;
- LE BOECH Y., “L’Armée romaine sous le HauteEmpire”, Paris;
- LE BOHEC Y., « Armi e guerrieri di Roma antica. Da
Diocleziano alla caduta dell’impero” (traduzione L. Del
Corso), Roma, ed.: Carocci, 2008 ;
- LE BOECH Y., “The Imperial Roman army”, Londra
– New York 1994;
- LE BOHEC Y. «L’armement des Romains pendant
les Guerres Puniques d’après les sources littéraires»,
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies, 8,
1997 ;
- LIBERATI A. E SILVERIO F., “Organizzazione militare,
esercito”, vol. 5 del Museo della Civiltà Romana,1988;
- LUDWIG V. BERGHE, “some roman military
-
-
-
-
-
equipment of the first three centuries AD in Belgian
museums”, J.R.M.E.S. 7,1996;
MANNING W.H., “Catalogue of the Romano-British
iron tools, fittings and weapons in the British Museum”,
London, British Museum Publications, 1985;
MATYSKAZ P., “I grandi nemici di Roma Antica”, ed.
New Compton , 2007;
MC CARTENEY E., “The military indebtenes of early
Rome to Etruria”, Memories of the American Academy
at Rome, 1917;
MIKS
C.,
“Berlegungen
zur
roemischen
schwertausruestung in der zeit karkomannnenkriege”;
NIGEL MILLS, “Celtic and romans artifact”, Essex;
NYLÈN E., “Early gladius sword found in Scandinavia”,
Acta Archaelogica XXXIV, 1963;
OBMANN J.: “ Zu einer elfenbeinernen dolchgriffplatte
aus Nida-Heddernheim/frankfurt am Main”, J.R.M.E.S
3, 1992;
OBMANN J. (2000), “Studien zu römischen
Dolchscheiden des 1Jahrhunders n. Chr.”, (Kölner
Studien zur Archaologie der Römischen Provinzen,
Band 4). ISBN: 3-89646-132-X;
PETCULUSCU L.,”bronze miniature weapons and
armour in the equipment of roman soldiers from Dacia
in the second and third century a.D.”, Acta of the 12th
international congress of ancient bronze in Nijmegen,
1995;
QUESADA F., “Gladius hispaniensis:: an archeologic
view from Iberia”, JRMES 1997, vol. 8;
RADMAN-LIVAJA IVAN, “Militaria Siscensia”, Musei
archeologici Zagrabiensis Catalogi et monographiae;
RALD ULLA, “the swords from Danish bog finds”, JR.M.E.S., 5, 1994
RANKOV B., “The pretorian Guard”, London;
RICHMOND I., “Traiana’s army on Traian’s Column”,
Londra, 1982;
SCHULTEN A., “Numantia. Die ergebnisse der
Ausgrabungen 1905-1912”, Munich, 1914-1931;
SCOTT IAN R.. “First century military daggers and
the manufacture and supply of weapons for the Roman
army”. In: Bishop, M.C. (a cura di), The production and
distribution of Roman military equipment. Proceedings
of the second Roman military equipment conference,
British Archaeological Reports;
SCOTT IAN R, “Military equipment and the roman
army in London”, J.R.M.E.S. 1;
SEKUNDA N., “Republican roman army 200-104 BC”,
ed.. Osprey;
SIM D., “The manifacture of disposable weapons for the
roman army”, J.R.M.E.S., 3, 1992;
SIMON TIMOTHY J., “The arms and armour from
Dura Europos, Syria”;
SIMPSON G. “Roman weapons, tools, bronze equipment
and brooches from Neuss-Novaesium excavations 19551972”, British Archaeological Reports, International
series, 862, Oxford: ed. Archaeopress, 2000;
SOUTERN P. , “The late roman army” , London 1996;
STEPHENSON I.P., “Roman-Byzantine Infantry
Equipment”, Tempus;
STEPHENSON I.P., “Roman Infantry Equipment, the
Later Empire”, Tempus;
THIEL A. & ZANIER W., “Römische dolche
– Bemerkungen zu den Fundumständen”, J.R.M.E.S.
5,1994;
136
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
136
27/05/2012, 16.25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ULBERT G., “Straubing und Nydam . Zu romischen
Langschwertern der spaten Limeszeit”, Munich 1974;
- ULBERT
G.,
“Der
Legionarsdolche
von
Oberammergau” in Aus Bayerns Frühzeit. Festschrift F.
Wagner, Monaco;
- ULBERT G., “Galdii aus Pompeji”, Germania, 47;
- UNZ C., “Römische militärfunde aus Baden- Acquae
Helvetica, Jahresbericht Gessel. Pro Vindonissa, 1971;
- VAN DRIEL MURRAY C. , “Roman Military equipment
, the source of evidence.. Proceedings of the fifth Roman
Military equipment conference”, BAR 476;
- VENDEN L. BERGHE & M. SIMKINS, “ construction
and recostruction of the Titelberg dagger”, JRMES 12/
13, 2001;
- WESTPHAL H., “Ein römischer Prunkdolch aus
Haltern”;
- YPEY J., “drei römische Dolche mit tauschier-ten
Scheiden aus niederländischen Sammlungen”, Ber
Amersfoort, 10-11;
- CABRE DE MORAN, M.E., “Notas para el estudio de
las espadas de tipo Arcóbriga”, Encuentro de Homenaje.
Zaragoza, 151-162, 1984;
- CABRE DE MORAN M.E, “Espadas y puňales de la
Meseta Oriental en la II etad del hierro”, Celtiberos,
Diputacion provincial de Zaragoza, 123-126, 1988;
- CABRE HERREROS :”puňale dobleglobulares con
provale simbologia astral en el pomo de la empuňatura”,
XX Congreso Nacional de Arquelogia, pag. 341-346;
- CHAIN GALAN: “Celtibèros. Tra las estelas de
Numancia.”, Soria , Junta de Castilla y Leon, 2005;
- COLLINS J., “The Celts, origin, myths, invention”,
London, Tempus, 2003;
- CUADRADO, E., “La panoplia ibérica de Murcia”,
1989;
- CUADRADO D., “La panoplia ibérica de “El
Cigarralejo” , Documentos: Serie Arqueología, Murcia,
1989;
- CUNLIFFE B., “The Ancient Celts”, Oxford University
Press, 1997;
- DE LA CHICA G, “El armamento de los Iberos”,
Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, 63.1, 309321, 1957
- DE NAVARRO J.M., “Find from the site of La Tene”
,Oxford University press, 1972;
- DE PRADO E. KAVANGH, “el puńal biscoidal
peninsular : tipologìa y relacion con el puńal militar
romano (pugio)”, Gladius, pag. 5-85, 2008;
- DUVAL P. M., “I Celti”, Rizzoli;
- FILLOY NIEVA, “las armas de las necròpolis
celtibèricas de Carasta y La Hoya. Tipologia de sus
puňales y prototipos del pugio”, Journal of Roman
Military Studies n. 8, pag. 137-150, 1997;
- FILLOY NIEVA, “los puňales con eňpunadura globular
de fronton en la necròpolis de la II edad del hierro de la
Hoya”, Gladius, XXII pag. 57-72;
- GARCIA-GELABERT M.P.,”Estudio del armamento
prerromano en la Península Ibérica a través de los
textos clásicos”, Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, II, 69-80,
1989;
- GIANADDA R., “Celti, Germani e Vichinghi”,
Mondadori Electa;
- IBANEZ CARMELO FERNANDEZ, “Las dagas del
ejército altoimperial en Hispania”, Gladius XXVIII,
2008;
- LENERZ DE WILDE, M.,”Art celtique et armes
ibèriques”, Aquitania, Suppl. 1, 273-280, 1986;
- MORILLO A. &JOAQUIN AURRECOECHEA, “The
roman army in Hispania”;
- NIETO G. Y, ESCALERA A.,”Estudio y tratamiento
de una falcata de Almedinilla”, Informes y trabajos del
Instituto de Restauración y Conservación, 10, 1970;
- NAVASCUES E., “Dos falcatas ibèricas y un puňal
de la provincia de Càceres en el Museo Arquelògico
provincial del badajoz”, Revista de Estdudios
Extremenos ,33,1, pag. 47-56;
- PINTA J. L.,”Yacimientos arqueològicos de
Camporrobles y areas cercanas”, Cuadernos de
Prehistoria y arquelogia castellonenses, 13, pag. 291332;
- QUESADA SANZ F., “Armamento, Guerra y Sociedad
en la necrópolis ibérica del Cabecico del Tesoro (Mula,
Murcia, España)”. BAR International Series, 502. I-II.
Oxford, 1989;
- QUESADA SANZ F.,”Armamento de supuesta
ON THE CELTIBERIAN WEAPONS,
seen as prototype of the roman pugio
- ALONSO G., “Sobre el hallzago de un puńal biglobular
en Monte Cildà: La panoplia militar indìgena al servicio
del Roma”, Sautuola,X: 35-45;
- ARGENTE O., “la necròpolis de Carratiermes “,Il
simposio sobre los celtìberos, 1988, pag. 51-58;
- ARTINANO Y GALDACANO: “Exposiciòn de hierros
antiguos espańoles; catalogo (Madrid), 1919;
- BANFI G., “L’armamento dei Celti”, ed. Il Cerchio;
- BELLIDO G., “puňal romano de Iuliòbriga”, Archivo
Espaňol de Arqueologia, 36, pag. 200-201;
- BORN H. & SVEND H., “Helme und waffen
alteuropas”, sammlung Axell Guttmann;
- BLAZQUEZ, J.M.; GARCIA-GELABERT, M.P,
“Estudio del armamento prerromano en la Península
Ibérica a través de las fuentes y de las representaciones
plásticas”. Hispania Antiqua, 14, 91-115, 1990;
- BRONCANO S., “La necrópolis ibérica de El Tesorico
(Hellín, Albacete)”. Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico
20, 43-183,1985;
- BRUHN DE HOFFMAYER, A.,”Arms and armour in
Spain”. Madrid,1972;
- CABRE A. J., “La caetra y el scutum en Hispania
durante la Segunda Edad del Hierro”, bseaa 6, 57-83,
1939-40;
- CABRE A. J.,”El saludo ibérico, saludo racial
precursor del nacional. Su difusión por Europa en unión
del gladius hispaniensis”, Revista de Coleccionistas y
Curiosos. XIX, núm. 196, 21-31,1943;
- CABRE A., “ tipologìa del puńal en la cultura de Las
Cogotas”, Archivio Espanôl del Arte y Arqueologia”,
21, pag. 222-223;
- CABRE A.,”El castro y la necròpolis del hierro cèltico
de Chamartìn de la Sierra”, Madrid, Ministerio De
educacion Nacional, 1950;
- CABRE A.,”datos para la cronologia del puňal de la
cultura de la Cogotas”, Archivio Espanol de Arqueologia,
24, pag. 37-47, 1933;
- CABRE DE MORAN M.E., “Espadas y puñales de
las necrópolis celtibéricas”. Necrópolis Celtibéricas.
II Simposio sobre los celtíberos, Zaragoza, 205-224,
1990;
137
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
137
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
-
-
procedencia meseteña en las necrópolis ibéricas de
Murcia”. Necrópolis Celtibéricas. II Simposio sobre los
Celtíberos. Zaragoza, 231-240, 1990;
QUESADA SANZ F.,”Machaira, kopis, falcata”, ed.
Dona Ferentes. Homenaje a F. Torrent. Madrid, 7594,1994;
QUESADA SANZ F., “Arma y símbolo: la falcata
ibérica”, Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert, Alicante,
1992;
QUESADA SANZ F.,”Algo más que un tipo de espada:
la falcata ibérica”. Catálogo de la Exposición: La guerra
en la Antigüedad. Madrid, pp.196-205, 1997;
QUESADA SANZ F. ,”Una sepoltura con arnas de baja
época ibérica “, “Gladius”, vol. XX, 2000;
QUESADA SANZ F., “El armamento ibérico. Estudio
tipológico, geográfico, funcional, social y simbólico de
las armas en la Cultura Ibérica (siglos VI-I a.C.)”, 2
vol., Monographies,1997;
QUESADA SANZ F., “ Armas de la antigua Iberia, de
Tartetos a Numancia”, la Esfera de los Libro;.
SANDARS H.,”The weapons of the Iberians”,
Archeologia 25,Oxford,1913;
SIMON J., “the Atlantic Celts”, London , Brtish
Museum press, 1999;
SIMON J., “Britain and the Celtic iron age”, Brtish
Museum press, 1997;
SCHULTEN A., “Las Guerras de 154-72 a.C”, Fontes
Hispaniae Antiquae, IV. Barcelona, 1937;
STARY P., “Keltische waffen auf der Iberischen
Halbinse”, Madrider Mitteilungen 23, 114-144;
VITALE D., “I Celti”, ed. White Star, 2007;
KOCK J, “Celtic Culture”, ABC Clio;
- GIARDINO C., “I metalli nel mondo antico:
introduzione all’ archeometallugia”, ed. Laterza;
- GRACIA A.,”elementos metàlicos de tipo celtibèrico:
la colleciòn Pèrez Aguilar”, Il simposio sobre los
celtìberos, 1988, pag. 287-304;
- HEALY JOHN F., “miniere e metallurgia nel mondo
greco e romano”, ed. L’ Erma di Bretschneider;
- KMETIČ D & J. HORVAT, F. VODOPIVEC,
“Metallographic examinations of the roman Republican
weapons from the hoard from Grad near Šmihel”, 2004;
- LANG J., “ Study of the metallography of some Roman
sword”, Britannia 19,1988;
- LODEWIJCKX M., WOUTERS L., SCHUERMAN E.:
“A third century collection of decorative objects from a
roman villa at Wange: second interdisciplinary report”;
J.R.M.E.S. 7, 1996;
- MADRONERO DE LA CAL, “Estudio enstructural
comparative entre piezas metálicas aparecidas en los
yacimentos tardoromanos de Getafe (Madrid)”, Boletìn
del museo arqueológico nacional, 3, 1985;
- MINTO A., “L’ antica industria mineraria in Etruria”,
Studi Etruschi 1954;
- PANSERI C., “La tecnica di fabbricazione delle lame
d’ acciaio presso gli antichi”, Associazione Italiana di
Metallurgia, 1957;
- QUESADA SANZ F., “not so different: individual
fighting techniques ans small unit tactics of roman and
iberian armies”, Pallas,70, 2006;
- RADOMIR PLEINER, “Iron in archeology: the
europesn bloomery smelters”, Archeologicky Ustav
Avcr;
- SCOTT D.A., “Metallography and Microstructure of
ancient and historic metals”, The Getty Conservation
Institute Los Alamos, California, 1991;
- SIM D.,”Iron for the eagle: the iron industry of roman
Britain” ,Tempus;
- SIM D., “ the manufacture of disposable weapons for
the roman Army”, J.R.M.E.S 3, 1992;
- ŠMIT ŽIGA, “Analysis of copper-alloy fitments on a
roman gladius from the river ljubljanica”, Arheološki
vestnik, 51, 2000;
- TYLECOTE R.,”Early history of metallurgy in Europe”
, ed. Longman Group;
- TRIPATHI V., “History of the Iron Technology in India”,
ed. Rupa, 2008;
ON ANCIENT METALLURGY
- AIMÈ BOCQUET,”metallurgia e relazioni culturali
nell’ età del bronzofinale delle Alpi del Nord francesi”,
ed. Antropologia Alpina, 1983;
- BINAGHI R., “la metallurgia ai tempi dell’ Impero
Romano”, ed. Istituto Romano di Studi Romani;
- CAVALLINI m., “fortuitum et sordidum opus, appunti
di storia della metallurgia”, ed. Crace;
- COLMENERO A. R. & AVELAIRA T. V.,
“Equipamento militar del campamento romano de
Aquae Querquennae”, J.R.M.E.S 7, 1996;
- CUCINI TIZZONI C., “il ferro nelle Alpi, miniere e
metallurgia dall’ antichità al XVI sec.”, ed. Comune di
Bienno;
- Caley E.R., “Orichalcum ad related ancient alloys”;
- FERNÁNDEZ J. A.,”Analysis of metallic composition
and the process of production” in “Bronze studs in
roman Spain”, J.R.M.E.S 7, 1996;
- FORMIGLI E. “antiche officine del bronzo:materiali ,
strumenti, tecniche.” Ed. Nuova Immagine NIE;
- FORBERS R. J., “ Metalllurgy in antiquity: a notebook
of archaelogists and technologists”, Leiden 1950;
- FORBERS R. J., “Studies in Ancient Technology:
Metallurgy in Antiquity - Copper and Bronze, Tin,
Arsenic, Antimony and Iron (Studies in Ancient
Technology)”,Brill Academic Pub 1997 ;
- FRANCOVICH R., “Archeologia delle attività
estrattive e metallurgiche”, ed. All’ Insegna del Giglio,
1993;
ON ROMAN SYMBOLOGY
- BIANCHI BANDINELLI R., “Roma, l’arte romana nel
centro del potere”, Ed. Rizzoli;
- CATTABIANI A. & FUENTES M.C., “Bestiario di
Roma”, ed. Newton Compton;
- CECCHERELLI M. I., “Il vento d’oriente – alla
scoperta delle radici della cultura occidentale”, Ed. IEI,
1989;
- CHEVALIER J. & GHEERBRANT A., “Dizionario
dei Simboli – miti, sogni, costumi, gesti, forme, figure,
colori, numeri”, ed. BUR Rizzoli;
- CHINI P, “Vita e costumi dei romani antichi”, n°9, “La
religione”, ed. Quasar, 1990;
- DI DARIO B., “La Notitia Dignitatum, immagini e
simboli del Tardo Impero Romano”, edizione Ar.;
- GUÉNON RENÉ, “I simboli”, ed. Garzanti;
- GUÉNON RENÉ, “Il Regno della Quantità e i Segni dei
138
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
138
27/05/2012, 16.25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CATALOGUES
Tempi”, Milano 1982.
- GRIMAL P., “Mitologia - I miti greco-romani raccontati
da Pierre Grimal”, ed. Garzanti;
- HOPE M. V.,”Trophies and Tombstones commemorating
the roman soldiers”,World Archaelogy, 35, 2003;
- IMPELLUSO L., “dizionari dell’arte – la natura ed i
suoi simboli”, ed. Electa;
- JOCELYN M. C. TOYNBEE, “Morti e sepoltura nel
mondo romano”, ed. L’Erma di Bretschneider;
- KÜNZL E. “Dekorierte gladii und gingula: Eine
ikonografische statistik”, J.R.M.E.S 5,1994;
- SIGHINOLFI C., “I guerrieri lupo nell’Europa arcaica.
Aspetti della funzione guerriera e metamorfosi rituali
presso gli indoeuropei”, Rimini 2004;
- WOOD D.,”The Scolae Palatinae and the Notitia
Dignitatum”, J.R.M.E.S 7, 1996;
Inside which images and information regarding
pugiones, gladi, spathae and contemporary European
swords can be found.
- BRITISH MUSEUM: British Iron Age Sword And
Scabbard, 2006;
- BRITISH MUSEUM: Prehistoric Metal Artifact from
Italy, 2007;
- CHAPMAN E. M., “A catalogue of Roman military
equipment in the national museum of Wales” BAR,
2005;
- auction house CHRSTIE’S “ The art of warfare , The
Axell Guttmann Collection part I , 6 novembre 2002;
- auction house CHRSTIE’S , The Axell Guttmann
Collection of ancient arms and armours, part. II, 28
aprile 2004;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA, asta n. 47, 2004;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA: asta n. 49, 2005;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA: asta n. 50, 2006;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA: asta n. 51, 2006;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA: asta n. 52, 2007;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA: asta n. 53, 2007;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA: asta n. 54, 2008;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA: asta n. 56, 2008;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA: asta n. 57, 2009;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA: asta n. 58, 2009;
- auction house HERMANN HISTORICA: asta n. 59, 2010;
- MANNING W.H. , “catalogue of the roman-british
iron tools, fittings and weapons in the British Museum”,
London;
- MUSEUM CARNUNTINUM: W. Jobst (ed.),
Carnuntum. Rom an der Donau, 1992;
- MUSEUM
CARNUNTINUM:
F.
Humer
,
“Legionsadler und Druidenstab. Vom Legionslager zur
Donaumetropole”,2006;
- NLAZI RIMSKE V. O., “Finds of the roman military
equipment in Croatia”, Cip zapis Dostupan, Zagreb,
2010;
- SEPAROVIĆ T. & URODA N., “Ancient roman
collection of the museum of croatian archaelogical
monuments”, Split, 2009;
- Unz, C. & Deschler-Erb E.,“Katalog der militaria aus
Vindonissa. Militärische Funde, Pferdegeschirr und
Jochteile bis 1976“, Brugg: Veröffentlichungen der
Gesellschaft pro Vindonissa;
ON THE ROMAN MILITARY STELAE AND
VARIOUS ICONOGRAPHS
- ALSTAIR SCOTT A., “Roman Military Tombstone”,
ed. Shire Archaeology;
- CUMONT F., “After life in roman paganism”, 1959;
- BIANCHI BANDINELLI R.,”il maestro delle imprese
di Traiano”, Electa, 2003;
- FARINELLA V.,” La colonna Traiana: un esempio di
lettura verticale”, in Prospettiva, 26, 1981;
- FRANZONI C., “Habitus atque Habitudo Militis,
monumenti funerari di militari nella Cisalpina romana”,
ed. “L’Erma” di Bretschneider;
- FRANZONI C., “Il monumento funerario patavino di
un militare e un aspetto dei rapporti artistici tra zone
provinciali”, rivista di archeologia, 6;
- KOS M.S., “A latin epitaph of a roman legionary from
Corinth”, Journal of roman studies, 68;
- POLITO E., “I fregi d’armi del Foro di Traianao. La
base della colonna e i pannelli nella storia del motivo”,
in I luoghi del consenso imperiale. Il foro di Augusto. Il
foro di Traiano. Catalogo della mostra, Roma, 1995;
- POLITO E., “Fulgentibus armis. Introduzione allo
studio dei fregi d’armi antichi”, in Xenia Antiqua, 4,
1998;
- RINALDI TUFI S., “Militari romani sul Reno”, ed.
Giorgio Bretschneider;
- TOYNBEE J. M., “ Art in roman Britain”, 1963;
- TOYNBEE J. M., “ Art in Britain under the Romans”,
1964;
- TOYNBEE J. M., “Death and burials in the roman
world”, 1971;
- ZANKER P., “Das Trajans forum in Rom”,
Archaologischer Anzeiger,85, 1970;
139
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
139
27/05/2012, 16.25
PUGIO - GLADIUS BREVIS EST
140
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
140
27/05/2012, 16.25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, we mostly thank dr. Mike Thomas for his very careful review of this book, his effort has been indeed precious
for us.
Also mr. David Roeder gave us his valuable suggestions to improve our work, and we thank him for that.
It is then with great pleasure that we also thank Dr. Antonella Grassi for her help in providing us with the correct
translation and interpretation of the numerous Latin citations, which we have been able to trace thanks to the meticulous
work of Francesco Caratelli, to whom we also give our heart-felt thanks.
Not less precious is the consultancy given us by Dr. Tiziana Lorenzetti, fundamental for the interpretation of some
symbols of the sheaths, as well as that of engineer Fabrizio Colicigno, helping us in the study and understanding of the
mechanical strength of the blades.
A very big thank you to Dr. T. Tanzilli for obtaining access to some interesting specimens of pugiones and mr. D.X.
Kenney for information on a specimen in his own collection.
We would also like to acknowledge the help we received from Dr. Mike Bishop, who we thank for giving us permission
to use some of his excellent drawings.
Finally, many thanks to our wives, because often immersed in our research or overwhelmed by endless telephone calls
in order to discuss the latest idea with enthusiasm, we were withdrawn from our family lives, putting their patience and
understanding to the test.
141
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
141
27/05/2012, 16.25
Libro inglese BAR [A4].indd
142
27/05/2012, 16.25