Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros en texte intégralSupplément 3Mobilier chrétien ou christianisé ?Early Christian Themes and Symbol...

Mobilier chrétien ou christianisé ?

Early Christian Themes and Symbols on Roman Militaria of the 4th to 6th/7th Centuries CE

Thématiques et symboles chrétiens primitifs sur les militaria romains du ive au vi/viie siècles n.è.
Stefanie Hoss et Ute Verstegen

Résumés

Cette contribution se fonde sur la différence frappante entre la fréquence élevée de symboles de dieux païens utilisés comme figures protectrices sur les boucliers et les casques des soldats romains entre le ier et le iiie siècle n.è. et l'absence quasi totale de symboles chrétiens aux ive et ve siècles. Aucun bouclier datant du ive au vie/viie siècle n’a été conservé, mais le chrisme apparaît régulièrement dans les représentations sur les boucliers portés par les soldats proches de l’empereur ; cela peut toutefois signifier que ces boucliers étaient portés exclusivement par sa garde rapprochée. Si les casques datant des ive et ve siècles retrouvés lors de fouilles archéologiques étaient décorés, la plupart d’entre eux ne présentaient aucune décoration pouvant être clairement associée à la religion chrétienne ou à l’un des dieux païens. Un petit nombre de casques décorés d’un petit Chi Rho juste au‑dessus du front font exception. En plus d'être un symbole chrétien, il a été montré que le Chi Rho est étroitement lié à Constantin en tant que symbole signe de loyauté envers l’empereur. De la fin du ve siècle au vie/viie siècle, les croix latines ornées de pierres précieuses (crux gemmata) et les thèmes clairement chrétiens (Daniel dans la fosse aux lions) semblent être représentés plus fréquemment sur les casques, et de manière clairement apotropaïque. Il semble que les soldats de cette période soient revenus à la coutume de demander la protection divine au combat en décorant leur armure de symboles liés à leur dieu et au salut.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1This contribution intends to highlight the difference between the rarity of Christian symbols and themes on the Roman arms and armour of the 4th to 5th (and in some cases 6th) centuries CE, in contrast to the abundance of pagan symbols on military equipment of the 1st to 3rd centuries CE. The aim is to provide an overview on the discrepancy between the depictions of armour in various mediums and contemporary armour finds, thus indicating the development of the use of Christian symbols and themes as apotropaia on armour.

  • 1 Hoss 2023, pp. 713‑715.

2During the High Empire, both images and symbols of gods, as well as apotropaia and written invocations, were prominently featured on the armour (and some arms) of Roman soldiers.1 These are generally accepted to have been used by the soldiers as protective symbols invoking divine intervention in battle. Consequently, it seems surprising that this centuries-old tradition, which flourished well into the late 3rd century, appears to have been discontinued with the official acceptance of Christianity in the 4th and 5th centuries. While Christian symbols would probably have been inadvisable before the edicts of toleration issued in 311 CE by Emperor Galerius and especially 313 CE by the emperors Constantine I and Licinius, after this date, Christian soldiers could have openly displayed their Christian faith and used Christian symbols on their arms and armour without fear of state repercussions. However, as we would like to demonstrate, Christian protective symbols are scarce in the 4th and 5th centuries. This is all the more surprising when contrasted with the contemporary representations of soldiers, which sometimes do depict Christian symbols on military equipment, especially on the shields and standards.

  • 2 Cameron 2015, pp. 3-22.
  • 3 Brennecke 2007a, pp. 74-75.
  • 4 Leppin 2023, pp. 351-354 and 357-365; Brennecke 2007a, pp. 95-97 and 2007b; Shean 2010, pp. 178-215

3According to Cameron, it is very difficult to correctly assess the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire between the 2nd and 6th centuries CE.2 In addition to Christian authors’ tendency to use hyperbole, we must contend with the vagaries of defining what constitutes a Christian, what counts as a conversion, and which of the various denominations may be considered Christian. Consequently, it is impossible to accurately estimate the actual number of Christians in the Empire, and this is, of course, even more challenging to determine for the Roman army. It seems that by the end of the 2nd century CE, Christianity was widespread throughout the Roman Empire, but the spread was quite uneven, with a noticeably higher density of Christians in the southern and eastern parts of the Empire than in the western and northern parts.3 By the 3rd century, Christians were present in all social strata, even in the highest circles of the imperial court,the Roman army, and the administration.4

  • 5 Speidel 2006, pp. 4-6.
  • 6 Speidel 2006, pp. 4-6; Swift 2009, p. 159; Hoss 2013 and 2014, pp. 288-292.

4Some clarification of the latter two categories is necessary. Since the latter part of the Principate, the army and the administration were not separate entities, but were seen as two branches of the same militia in the service of the emperor.5 Both branches wore the same ‘military dress’ consisting of a tunic and cloak, fastened with a crossbow brooch on the right shoulder, and the cingulum militare (military belt). The latter was a leather waist belt with a metal buckle and decorated metal mounts. It was a highly symbolic and thus highly decorative dress item with a function similar to that of modern uniforms, indicating the wearer’s membership of the militia.6

  • 7 See for instance Wischmeyer 1982 and 1992.
  • 8 See Émion 2020 and 2023.

5As mentioned above, it is difficult to estimate the proportion of Christians in the Roman army before and after the ‘Constantinian shift’. However, the formula of the funerary inscriptions or the place chosen for burial (e.g. in catacombs built by Christian communities) can provide at least some clues as to soldiers’ membership of a Christian group.7 A special case is that of the guard units, such as the protectores, who were particularly close to the emperor in battle, as well as in other situations.8 These individuals must have had a special relationship of trust with the emperors, which may have included loyalty in religious aspects as well.

  • 9 Becatti 1960; Sodini 1994; Radnóti-Alföldi 1999; Mayer 2002; Yoncacı Arslan 2015.
  • 10 Beyeler 2011.
  • 11 Delbrück 1929; Olovsdotter 2005.

6During the 4th and 5th centuries, visual depictions of soldiers appeared in various forms of art, including sculpture, mosaics, frescoes, ivory diptychs, and silver vessels. Many of these depictions primarily served to commemorate military achievements, convey political power, and were as such propaganda tools to glorify the armies and the rulers who commanded them. Depictions of military themes on triumphal arches and honorific columns continued the Roman tradition of celebrating imperial victories and the valour of the soldiers. These monuments served not only as commemorations of specific military achievements, but also as potent symbols of the emperor’s power and the divine favour he enjoyed.9 In addition to these state monuments, depictions of the emperor in military attire, contemporary military personnel of various ranks, soldiers, weapons, and equipment were also depicted on donativa (e.g. silver vessels and coins)10 given by the emperors to their successful troops, or on images showing the emperor or high officials surrounded by one or more guardsmen (e.g. on ivory diptychs).11

  • 12 Sarantis 2013, p. 156.
  • 13 Theotokis 2018, p. 443.

7All these monuments and objects not only celebrated military success but also served as visual propaganda tools reinforcing the legitimacy and divine sanction of the emperors. On the one hand, they offer valuable insights into the military and political narratives of the late Roman and early Byzantine periods, emphasizing the continuity of imperial ideology through art and architecture. On the other, they also provide modern scholars with insights into the armour, weaponry, and organizational structure of ancient armies. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that depictions in state art may have shown military equipment that was sometimes unrealistic or classicizing,12 or was possibly not used on the battlefield, but rather worn for ceremonial purposes, especially in the depiction of high-ranking army members or the emperors’ guards.13

8In addition, we must distinguish between the depiction of Christian symbols in official state propaganda and the expression of individual Christian religiosity on objects personally owned or commissioned by individuals. Just as there was a difference between the depictions of soldiers on state monuments and on the soldier’s own gravestones, different forms of military equipment also differ in their informative value. The decoration of the arms and armour on military equipment was influenced to varying degrees by ‘state control’. Standards and shields, for instance, had been markers of unit identity since at least the time of Augustus, and, as such, carried symbols approved by the highest levels of command. As these objects had been commissioned by the state, they do not indicate the personal religiosity of the owner/wearer, but rather reflect state propaganda.

  • 14 Breeze et al. 1976; Fischer 2019, pp. 46-47.
  • 15 Speidel 2009, pp. 417-419; Herz 2010, p. 111; Fischer 2019, pp. 46-47.
  • 16 Hoss 2017, p. 96.

9In contrast, at least during the Principate, soldiers chose the decoration of their personal arms and armour, such as the helmet, as they owned these items.14 These could be bought from private workshops, or obtained from the unit’s armamentarium and paid for over time through deductions from the soldiers’ pay.15 The decorations on these items were a matter of personal taste, guided by fashion and probably ‘regulated’ by the soldiers as a group by the simple exertion of peer pressure.16

  • 17 Hoss 2023, p. 714, figs 1‑2.
  • 18 Schamper 2015, pp. 92-157.
  • 19 Snakes on helmets, see Bongartz 2013, pp. 66-67 or peltae on belts, chapes, and horse gear, see Hos (...)

10From the time of the creation of an army of professional soldiers under Augustus onwards, the arms, and especially the armour of the Roman soldier had been heavily decorated. In most cases, the motifs invoked gods from the classical Roman pantheon deemed to help the soldiers in battle (Jupiter, Mars, Victory, Minerva). This trend intensified from the mid-2nd century until well into the 3rd century CE, with the number of depictions on military equipment increasing dramatically.17 In addition, the range of gods depicted on the equipment widened to include deities other than the main Roman state gods.18 Furthermore, apotropaic symbols such as peltae or snakes, used to magically ensure protection, were now used with markedly higher frequency.19

  • 20 See e.g. the image with the areas of responsibility of the magistri officiorum in the Notitia Digni (...)

11The rapid destruction of whole armies during the 3rd and 4th centuries, coupled with the need to quickly supply newly recruited units with equipment, led to an ever-stronger reliance on centralized fabricae.20 This minimized the ability of ordinary soldiers to influence the decoration of their arms and armour in late antiquity. However, this is unlikely to have been the case with the arms and armour of higher officers.

  • 21 See for instance Feugère 1990, Miks and Berg 2014.
  • 22 See Theotokis 2018, p. 441 and Theuws 2019, p. 129. In the Mediterranean, weapon burials are rarer (...)
  • 23 Haldon 2002, p. 65.
  • 24 Odenweller 2019, pp. 14-17 and 37-38.
  • 25 Rebillard 2012a, p. 2 and 2012b, pp. 131-134.
  • 26 Brather-Walter and Brather 2012, pp. 128-135.

12As to the find circumstances of military equipment in the 4th to 6th centuries, most weapons and armour from this period were either found in fluvial or terrestrial deposits21 or in burials, at least north of the Alps.22 Regarding burials with weapons, it was long assumed that the deliberate absence of grave goods indicated a Christian confession, and that richly furnished graves could therefore not be associated with Christian groups, both in relation to the buried persons and the surviving relatives who provided for the burial. Richly furnished graves were therefore regarded as the legacies of pagan groups in the Roman Empire or of non-Roman federates. It was also assumed that individuals buried with weapons could not have been Christians, as they were considered to have a negative attitude towards military service.23 Such ideas have since been revised or refuted.24 According to Éric Rebillard, Christian religious affiliation was only one facet of a person’s identity, and Christian institutions were not particularly interested in the burial customs followed during a funeral.25 Furthermore, Susanne Brather-Walter and Sebastian Brather describe grave goods as being indifferent with regard to their significance for the religious views of the deceased or those who buried them.26

  • 27 Theuws 2019, pp. 129-136, figs 8.2-4. See also Odenweller 2019, p. 38.

13As Frans Theuws has shown, the deposition of weapons in burials seems to have been a regionalized custom – or rather customs. Theuws differentiates burials with differing sets of weapons in them: spears, bows, and arrows for hunting versus swords and shields for war. These two sets in graves differ both chronologically and in their regional distribution.27

  • 28 Hoss 2017, pp. 23-29.

14Another caveat should be added when interpreting military equipment discovered in graves: the deceased may not have been the first user and/or may not have influenced the decoration; shields or helmets may have been gifts, either as official donativa or as personal gifts, or they may have been taken from a defeated enemy as spoils of war.28 Accordingly, religious symbols on these objects may not always reflect the deceased’s religion.

15Due to the limited space available for this contribution, we cannot examine the development of the depictions on all elements of the arms and armour. We have therefore selected two groups: the shields, as these are relatively well represented in the depictions, but not at all represented among the archaeological finds, and the helmets, as these are fairly well represented archaeologically, but only play a minor role in the depictions.

16In each case, we will start by describing the situation during the Principate, before moving on to the depictions of this particular type of armour in the art of the period. We will then describe the contemporary finds and their decoration, and conclude each part by summarizing our findings. We will close this article with some general observations and conclusions.

Military Equipment

Shields

Archaeological Finds during the Principate

  • 29 Nabbefeld 2008, p. 33. See also Vegetius, 2.18.1-2.
  • 30 Nabbefeld 2008, pp. 17-25.
  • 31 Nabbefeld 2008, pp. 17-20; Fischer 2019, p. 135. See Abdy 2024, figs 5.17-18 and 6.26.
  • 32 Nabbefeld 2008, pp. 20-25.
  • 33 Nabbefeld 2008, pp. 43-50 and 52.
  • 34 The following after: Burandt 2017, pp. 111-116.
  • 35 Burandt 2017, p. 112.
  • 36 For a depiction see https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.3897296; Burandt 2017, pp. 112-114, fig. (...)
  • 37 See https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.28497639.

17Shields are a unique class of military equipment because, as the written sources tell us, the design of their outer side was regulated by the unit and used to recognize units from afar.29 During the Principate, shields could take one of three basic forms: the rectangular curved scutum, the flat hexagonal shield, and the oval or round shields.30 The scutum was most practical for heavy infantry standing in a continuous battle line, and accordingly was characteristic for legionaries, though not exclusive to them.31 The other forms were used by horsemen, light infantry, and skirmishers, with the round shields becoming more common in late antiquity.32 All shields featured depictions in addition to the shield bosses and nails, which could also be highly decorated.33 As almost no shields from the Principate have been found, their decoration has to be reconstructed mainly from depictions of shields on funerary and propaganda art.34 For the 1st and early 2nd centuries CE, these show the elements of triumphal iconography on an intensely colourful painted background: thunderbolts, eagle wings, laurel and oak leaves wreaths, or the Lupa Capitolina. According to Boris Burandt, at least some of these decorative elements were fashioned in relief from embossed sheet metal, as is clearly visible on reliefs such as Trajan’s Column (fig. 1).35 From the early 2nd century CE onwards, shield decorations began to change to depictions that were painted only, and which depicted mythological scenes more reminiscent of Roman frescoes or mosaics in their treatment of the subjects. By the 3rd century CE, this was the only manner of decoration, as can be seen in the three flat round shields from Dura-Europos dating to the mid-3rd century CE. One depicts the siege of Troy, one depicts an Amazonomachy, and the last depicts an armed god, probably Mars.36 A 3rd-century scutum decorated with painted depictions of gods was also discovered at Dura-Europos.37

Figure 1. Detail of a plaster cast of Trajan’s Column depicting Roman legionaries with scuta exhibiting decorations in relief

Figure 1. Detail of a plaster cast of Trajan’s Column depicting Roman legionaries with scuta exhibiting decorations in relief

Rome, Museum of Roman Civilization, Rome

Credit: S. Hoss, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

The Earliest Written Sources on Christian Symbols on Shields

  • 38 This topic, which has been dealt with extensively in the literature, was last discussed by Serrano (...)
  • 39 The terminus labarum probably was of Celtic origin, see Hatt 1950.

18The earliest record of a symbol or symbols that can be associated with a Christian meaning in a military context relates to Constantine the Great (r. 306‑337) and the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 CE.38 The written sources mention a holy sign which was revealed to Constantine in a supernatural way during battle. However, they are contradictory on its form. Lactantius describes a Tau-Rho, or staurogram, while Eusebius describes a Chi Rho, or Christogram/chrismon, and a cross. Lactantius and Eusebius refer to the soldiers’ shields (see below), a military standard called labarum (λάβαρον or λάβουρον),39 and Constantine’s individual helmet (Eusebius, see below) as having carried this symbol.

  • 40 Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, 44.5 : Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus, ut caeleste sig (...)
  • 41 Hurtado 2006 and Garipzanov 2018, pp. 51-54.

19The earliest mention of a Christian symbol on shields is found in Lactantius’s De mortibus persecutorum, written at the Constantinian residence in Trier before 320 CE, and thus being chronologically very close to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The Christian rhetorician – teacher of Constantine’s son Crispus at the time – reports that, before the battle, in a dream, Constantine was instructed to mark the heavenly sign of God (caeleste signum dei) on the shields of his soldiers and then to engage in battle.40 Lactantius describes the symbol as an overturned letter X (transversa X littera), with the upper tip turned around (summo capite circumflexo). Readers might have associated this symbol with a staurogram, or Tau-Rho sign. In Christian writing practice, the staurogram – a ligature of the Greek letters tau and rho – was an abbreviation for the Greek word staurós (σταυρός), cross, having been in use in manuscripts since the 2nd century CE.41 It was also identified with the figure of the crucified Christ due to the visual appearance of a cross with a head-like circular shape above it. It is therefore unsurprising that Lactantius considered the sign to be the same as Christ (Christum in scutis notat). According to Lactantius, the sign clearly had a supportive character in the military, as he writes that the soldiers prepared for battle armed with it (quo signo armatus). This marks the first textual evidence of a Roman emperor adopting a Christian symbol as an identifying emblem for his army. In this context, the word armatus implies not only a protective semantic, but also that a person is ready to fight, encompassing both defensive and offensive readiness. As a Christian author, Lactantius aimed to convey to his readers that Constantine’s victory over Maxentius was a testament to the powerful intercessory effects of the symbol.

  • 42 See summarizing discussion in Garipzanov 2018, pp. 51-54.
  • 43 Eusebius Caesarensis, De vita Constantini, 4.21.

20The extensive research discussion of Lactantius’s description of the heavenly sign cannot be reproduced here. When assessing the text passage of the description of the sign, explanations range from a later corruption of the text to a purely literary construct by the author.42 The problem is that the staurogram does not appear on objects dating to this period, but the Chi Rho – described as the heavenly sign some years later by Eusebius – does. Eusebius also mentions that Constantine had the sign placed on military equipment.43 The word he used (ὅπλα) was used more broadly for military equipment in general, but more specifically for shields. Therefore, Eusebius is possibly another contemporary witness who testifies that Constantine had a symbol placed on the soldiers’ shields. He ascribed a victorious connotation to the sign (τὸ τοῦ σωτηρίου τροπαίου σύμβολον, the symbol of the salvific trophy).

4th- to 6th-Century Depictions of Shields

  • 44 RIC VII Treviri 372; Odahl 1981, p. 19 and 1983, p. 68; Alten and Zschucke 2004; Garipzanov 2018, p (...)

21The sign of the Chi Rho is the only Christian emblem known to widely appear on depictions of shields from the 4th to the 6th centuries. Both coinage and depictions in imperial propaganda art bear witness to this. While no images showing Constantine himself with a Chi Rho on a shield are known to date, several artefacts depicting his sons show emperors of the Constantinian dynasty with the Chi Rho as a shield emblem. The earliest known example appeared during Constantine’s reign, ten years after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The Chi Rho was chosen as one of the symbols to be displayed on the shield of Constantine’s son Crispus (c. 305‑326, r. as Caesar from 317), and appeared on the obverse of a series of copper coins minted around 322‑326 at Crispus’s imperial residence in Trier (fig. 2).44 Crispus is depicted laureate, in profile facing left, holding a spear over his right shoulder and an oval shield with a finely crafted rim and a Chi Rho in the centre in his left hand. The chi is written horizontally and the lines of the letters widen considerably towards the end. The rho loop is closed.

Figure 2. Bronze coin (follis) of Caesar Crispus, minted at Trier, 325/6 CE

Figure 2. Bronze coin (follis) of Caesar Crispus, minted at Trier, 325/6 CE

RIC VII Trier 372

Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Valentinian364, CC BY-SA 4.0

22Around the tricennalia of Constantine’s son Constantius II (r. as Caesar from 324 on, as Augustus 337‑361) in 353, different coins were minted showing the emperor armed and holding a shield bearing a large Chi Rho symbol. After his brother Constans was murdered by the usurper Magnentius in 350, Constantius II became the sole surviving emperor among the sons of Constantine. He was able to decisively defeat his opponent in 353, thereby securing his role as the sole Augustus in the Roman Empire. Since Magnentius – who was probably not a Christian himself – had attempted to use the Chi Rho prominently in his coinage (presumably as a symbol of self-legitimation), the use of the Chi Rho by Constantius II might have been a deliberate means of achieving dynastic and religious legitimation.

  • 45 RIC VIII Rome 232; Latimer 2022, p. 209.
  • 46 RIC VIII Trier 338, p. 341 and 344; Latimer 2022, p. 209 with fig. 5.17. Latimer incorrectly states (...)
  • 47 Martínez Chico and López Sánchez 2016. For an image see: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David (...)
  • 48 Martínez Chico and López Sánchez 2016.

23A series of silver multipla, minted in Rome between 352 and 355 CE, feature Constantius II bearing a shield adorned with the Chi Rho, illustrating both the emperor’s dynastic legitimacy and his direct association with divine favour in a military context.45 A gold solidus minted in Trier, dating between 353 and 355 CE, presents another example of Constantius II holding a shield adorned with the Chi Rho (fig. 3).46 A similar type of solidus was minted in Rome in 353, of which only one single high-quality example from Cáparra (Spain) is known. In this example, the Chi Rho on Constantius’s shield is rendered in retrograde, all letter lines are represented by double strokes and terminated at the ends by horizontal strokes; the rho loop is open.47 Trier and Rome belonged to the main mints under western Roman control in the 4th century, producing coins that emphasized the emperor’s image and ideology. As a solidus – a high-value gold coin –, these pieces were likely used in transactions involving significant sums, including payments to soldiers and diplomatic exchanges. We can agree with David Martínez Chico and Fernando López Sánchez, as well as other authors, that Constantius II propagated his dynastic legitimacy in the West with these coins. Unlike in the coinage of Magnentius, the Chi Rho is not framed by the additional letters alpha and omega, which Magnentius had used to express a clear Christian semantic of the sign.48

Figure 3. Gold solidus minted at Trier between 353 and 355 CE

Figure 3. Gold solidus minted at Trier between 353 and 355 CE

RIC VIII Trier 344. Obverse: Emperor Constantius II in military attire holding a shield with a Chi Rho
Berlin, Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen, no. inv. 18200306

Credit: Lutz-Jürgen Lübke (Lübke und Wiedemann), Public Domain Mark 1.0

  • 49 Vus 2021 and Latimer 2022, p. 349 sq. and fig. 7.3. The object is now held in the Hermitage Museum, (...)

24The Chi Rho on shields can also be found in other artistic media from this time onwards. A missorium – a ceremonial silver dish – (fig. 4) discovered in 1891 near Kerch, Crimea, probably also dates to the reign of Emperor Constantius II.49 This high-status object, partly gilded and nielloed, likely served in imperial or elite contexts, possibly as a gift symbolizing loyalty or as a ceremonial display of imperial power. The missorium depicts a haloed Roman emperor on horseback holding a spear in his right hand. He is also equipped with a sword and wears an unusual garment consisting of trousers and a short, long-sleeved tunic. To his left, the goddess of victory is leading him, and behind the horse a soldier carries a spear and a shield featuring a full-size Chi Rho. The lines of the chi widen slightly outwards and the loop of the rho is not completely closed. The border of the shield is decorated by alternating double lines and circles, presumably imitating a decoration with gemstones. The shield-bearer has shoulder-length, golden hair and wears a torque; these features possibly characterize him as a member of a unit of non-Roman foreigners. The soldier represents a scutarius, an imperial shield-bearer, member of an elite unit within the imperial guard, primarily employed for the personal protection of the emperor and his immediate entourage. This object demonstrates how the Chi Rho was incorporated into elite artefacts, embedding a symbol with a Christian connotation in the visual language of power and allegiance.

Figure 4. Silver missorium from Kerch (Crimea), probably commissioned by Constantius II

Figure 4. Silver missorium from Kerch (Crimea), probably commissioned by Constantius II

St Petersburg, Hermitage Museum

Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Hermitage Museum, CC BY-SA 4.0

  • 50 Becatti 1960, pp. 83-150 and Yoncacı Arslan 2015, pp. 117-126 with further references.
  • 51 See the discussion in Yoncacı Arslan 2015, p. 124 sq.

25The honorific columns of Theodosius I and Arcadius in Constantinople, although now destroyed, offer other significant historical references to the Chi Rho on shields. The Column of Theodosius (r. 379‑395 CE) was erected between 387 and 393 on the Forum Tauri (also known as the Forum Theodosii). It served as a propaganda monument for Theodosius’s reign and his military successes. The column was dismantled in the early 16th century, with fragments of its spiral frieze incorporated into the foundations of the Beyazit Hamam.50 Several of these fragments of white Proconnesian marble were rediscovered during construction works. One of these fragments shows a group of soldiers wearing ridge helmets and muscle cuirasses (fig. 5). They are bending to the left and have partially stretched their arms forwards. The fragment also depicts the exterior of four round shields, three of which feature different decorations. The foremost shield displays a Chi Rho filling its entire surface; the intersection of the letters is located under the round umbo of the shield. The lines of the chi slightly widen at the ends, and the rho loop ends in a small S‑shaped curve. An omega is still clearly recognizable on the right-hand side, proving that the Chi Rho, when used as a shield emblem, is accompanied by alpha and omega for the first time here. Based on the posture of the soldiers at the front and the Chi Rho shield, this scene has provoked very different interpretations. Some researchers interpret all the soldiers as members of Theodosius’s imperial guard, while others interpret them as defeated troops, or as some enemies being flanked by imperial soldiers. The interpretations of the scene differ from foreign soldiers in a supplicant posture, soldiers receiving gifts (largitio), Roman soldiers praying before the cross, or a ceremonial scene involving the emperor.51

Figure 5. Fragment of the spiral relief of the column of Theodosius I from the Forum Theodosii in Constantinople

Figure 5. Fragment of the spiral relief of the column of Theodosius I from the Forum Theodosii in Constantinople

Istanbul, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Istanbul, inv. no. D-DAI-IST-R6408_152113,02

Credit: Urs Peschlow/Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Istanbul. By kind permission

  • 52 Becatti 1960, pp. 151-264 and Yoncacı Arslan 2015, pp. 126-138 with many further references.

26Built in Constantinople during the early 5th century to honour Theodosius’s eldest son, Emperor Arcadius (r. 395‑408 CE), the second monumental honorific column commemorated Arcadius’s victories over the Goths, especially over the renegade Visigothic general Gainas.52 Work on the column began in 401/2, but it was not inaugurated until after the emperor’s death by his son Theodosius II in 421. While parts of the pedestal, including the base and the lower part of the column shaft, are still in situ, most of the column was destroyed in 1719. Historical descriptions and surviving 16th-century drawings indicate that the reliefs of the column featured soldiers bearing shields with the Chi Rho. On the western face of the pedestal, the second frieze from the top depicted the emperors Arcadius and Honorius in military dress, flanked by members of the militia wearing chlamys and a senator in a toga (fig. 6a). To the sides, both emperors are framed by their bodyguards, carrying round shields and spears. The shield emblem of the soldiers closest to the emperors is a Chi Rho on both sides. As on the Column of Theodosius, the Chi Rho is flanked by alpha and omega and features an S‑curvilinear rho loop. On the south side of the pedestal (fig. 6b), victories hold a large Chi Rho in a wreath, similar to the symbol on the shields of the guards on the west side. The tropaia at their sides are slightly confusing, as they also display shields with the Chi Rho. However, the shields on the tropaia are not round, but oval or hexagonal, and lack the alpha and omega displayed on the shields of the emperor’s bodyguards. Several vexilla bearing Chi Rho symbols are also among the trophies captured from the defeated on the south and east sides.

Figure 6. Drawings of the Column of Arcadius, erected after Arcadius’s victory over the Visigothic comes Gainas

Figure 6. Drawings of the Column of Arcadius, erected after Arcadius’s victory over the Visigothic comes Gainas

Cambridge, Trinity College Library, The Freshfield Album (1574), MS O.17.2, fol. 12r‑13r

Credit: Trinity College, Cambridge, CC BY-NC 4.0

  • 53 See also Serrano del Pozo 2021, p. 53, n. 62: ‘The labarum depicted among the trophies could have b (...)
  • 54 Kontny 2023, p. 204 and 218 and fig 5.8.2.

27Assuming that they were not erroneous additions by the early modern artist of the drawings, how can these depictions be explained? One possibility is that they depict weapons that were reconquered from the enemy, who had previously taken them from the Roman army in initial victories. However, the units whose defeat is celebrated by this column were Gothic foederati who were formerly active in the Roman army. Accordingly, their leader Gainas, as magister militum, may have used equipment very similar to that of the other imperial troops.53 In addition, oblong, hexagonally shaped shields may have been specific to foederati troops, because shields of this type have been excavated in Early Migration Period graves in Kerch (Crimea).54 If the Chi Rho had become the typical shield emblem for guard units in the Roman Empire by that time, its presence at the tropaia would have clearly indicated that the guard unit of the enemy’s leader had been defeated – and that the leader had probably been arrested or killed. In fact, Gainas was not killed by Arcadius’s army, but in 400 by the Huns under Uldin, who sent his head to Arcadius in Constantinople.

  • 55 RIC X Honorius 1331-1332.
  • 56 RIC X Valentinian III 2017.
  • 57 RIC X Maiorianus 2605-2608, others from Arles and Mediolanum, see RIC X Maiorianus 2612-2614 and 26 (...)

28In the Western Roman Empire, some gold solidi minted in Rome and Ravenna in the 5th century still depict the emperor on the obverse with a Chi Rho emblem on his shield. One example is a solidus minted in Ravenna for Honorius in 422 on the occasion of his tricennalia (fig. 7).55 Valentinian III (r. 425‑455), Honorius’s nephew and grandson of Theodosius I, also had a gold solidus minted at Rome in 454/5 to celebrate his tricennalia, depicting him holding a shield with a Chi Rho emblem.56 The last example is a solidus of Maiorianus, minted in Ravenna during his reign from 457 to 461 (fig. 8). This shows, on the obverse, the armoured and draped bust of the emperor in profile to the right, wearing a helmet and diadem.57 Maiorianus holds a round shield with a Chi Rho in his left hand and a spear in his right. The reverse claims the Victoria Augustorum, presenting the emperor standing in armour and holding a figure of Victory on a globe in his left hand and a cross-staff in his right, while his right foot rests on a human-headed serpent.

Figure 7. Gold solidus of Honorius, minted in Ravenna in 422 CE on the occasion of the emperor’s tricennalia

Figure 7. Gold solidus of Honorius, minted in Ravenna in 422 CE on the occasion of the emperor’s tricennalia

London, British Museum, inv. no. 1935,1117.761

Credit: The Trustees of the British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Figure 8. Solidus of Maiorianus, Ravenna, 457‑461 CE

Figure 8. Solidus of Maiorianus, Ravenna, 457‑461 CE

Obverse: portrait of the emperor
Berlin, Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen, inv. no. 18200549

Credit: Lutz-Jürgen Lübke (Lübke und Wiedemann), Public Domain Mark 1.0

29In the Eastern Roman Empire, depictions of the emperor with the Chi Rho as shield emblem ceased to occur. Several bronze coins (AE3) from Constantinople, Nicomedia, Kyzikos, and Antioch, dating from 401 to 403, depict Emperor Arcadius on the obverse holding a shield with a cross emblem instead (fig. 9).58 Arcadius also had coins minted for Honorius and Theodosius II. The legend invokes the ‘harmony of the emperors’ (CONCORDIA AVGG), and accordingly not only does Arcadius bear the shield motif with a cross in his emissions, but Honorius and Theodosius II do too.59

Figure 9. Bronze AE3 of Arcadius, Antioch, Syria, 401‑403 CE

Figure 9. Bronze AE3 of Arcadius, Antioch, Syria, 401‑403 CE

RIC X Arcadius 97
Obverse: bust of the emperor
American Numismatic Society, inv. no. 1944.100.54806

Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL)

  • 60 E.g. RIC X Arcadius 10-15, 28, 32 and 101-105 and RIC X Theodosius II (East) 205-206 and 420. Under (...)
  • 61 RIC X Honorius 1333.
  • 62 Barber 1990.

30Arcadius and Theodosius II, however, minted coins for female members of the imperial family, e.g. Arcadius’s wife Augusta Eudoxia, or Theodosius’s sister Pulcheria, which on the reverse showed Victory inscribing a shield with a Chi Rho and the legend SALVS REI PVBLICAE.60 Honorius issued a similar coin in Ravenna in 422 for his sister, Galla Placidia; on whose obverse she is also depicted with a Chi Rho on the right shoulder of her robe (fig. 10).61 A famous late example of a Chi Rho shield can be seen in the church of San Vitale in Ravenna, inaugurated in 547 during the reign of Emperor Justinian (r. 527‑565). A mosaic panel near the apse, part of the church’s intricate and richly symbolic decorations, features Justinian’s retinue, including a soldier holding a shield with a jewelled rim and a large Chi Rho symbol in the centre (fig. 11).62 The shield has a green and turquoise background colour, and the letters and the rim are depicted in gold adorned with precious gems alternating green rectangular and blue oval stones. The lines of the letters widen towards their ends, and the rho loop is closed. The round umbo in the centre is decorated with two concentric circles: the inner circle is made of red tesserae and the outer circle is divided into six sections in white, blue, gold, and black. The scutarius is part of the emperor’s guard, consisting of young men with golden torques and shoulder-long hair and thus still resembles the shield bearer on the missorium of Constantius. The man with the Chi Rho shield wears a light red tunic with a purple and gold shoulder part, and narrow white trousers. The soldier’s shield with the Chi Rho is significant because it not only depicts an imperial endorsement of Christianity, but also Justinian’s continuation of the symbiosis between military power and religious imagery. This portrayal further establishes the Chi Rho as an imperial symbol on a par with more traditional martial insignia, demonstrating its integration into the highest strata of Roman iconography.

Figure 10. Solidus for Galla Placidia, Ravenna, 422 CE

Figure 10. Solidus for Galla Placidia, Ravenna, 422 CE

Obverse: Augusta with a Chi Rho on the shoulder. Reverse: Victory with Chi Rho shield
Vienna, Münzkabinett, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. no. RÖ 29665

Credit: Photoatelier, KHM, CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 AT

Figure 11. Mosaic panel with depiction of Emperor Justinian, members of the militia, clerics and imperial guard with Chi Rho shield

Figure 11. Mosaic panel with depiction of Emperor Justinian, members of the militia, clerics and imperial guard with Chi Rho shield

Ravenna, San Vitale (inaugurated 547 CE)

Credit: U. Verstegen, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

  • 63 Jelusić 2017; Wiewiorowski 2023 with further references.
  • 64 Wiewiorowski 2023.
  • 65 Notitia dignitatum in partibus orientis, 5.7 and 12, see Wiewiorowski 2023, p. 173.
  • 66 Jelusić 2017. The tomb of Flavius Maximianus was discovered in 1964 in the Villa Maria catacomb in (...)
  • 67 Wiewiorowski 2023, p. 176.
  • 68 Notitia dignitatum in partibus orientis, 11; Notitia dignitatum in partibus occidentis, 9; Woods 19 (...)
  • 69 See for instance Odenweller 2019, p. 53.
  • 70 Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, MS. Canon. Misc. 378, fol. 141r.

31It is noticeable that, in the illustrations discussed so far, only the emperor himself, his scutarius, or his immediate bodyguard appear as bearers of the shields with Chi Rho or cross. No depiction is known in which soldiers of a unit involved in combat, carry a shield with a corresponding decoration, nor indeed any soldier outside the immediate imperial circle (with the exception of the fragment of the Column of Theodosius, the context of which is unclear). An interesting parallel can be found in the depictions of the Notitia Dignitatum, a late Roman administrative manual compiled around 400 in the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, which lists higher imperial offices, as well as Roman military units and their insignia. Although the original late Roman text is lost and only copies from the 15th and 16th centuries of a Carolingian intermediary copy (Codex Spirensis) have survived, research affirms the historical authenticity and value of the text and images and significantly enhances the relatively high credibility of the shield emblems depicted in it.63 Though the text of the Notitia Dignitatum countains no references to religion, the insignia and shield emblems contain traditional apotropaic elements such as peltae and religious symbols. These refer almost exclusively to elements of the imperial cult (eagle), and victory in general (personifications of Victoria), and show hardly any references to Christianity, despite the fact that the Notitia was written at a time after Christianity had been elevated to the status of state religion in the Roman Empire by Emperor Theodosius I in 380.64 Two of the shield decorations show small crosses with equal arms: the emblem of an eastern palatine legion of Mattiarii iuniores and a palatine auxiliary unit called Victores (iuniores).65 With regard to the Mattiarii iuniores emblem, Marko Jelusić has discussed the possibility that the cross was a copying error in the medieval and early modern manuscripts of the Notitia, by comparing them with the shield emblem on a wall painting of an armed soldier in the Villa Maria catacomb in Syracuse, Sicily.66 Only a few other shields feature a decorative scheme of two intersecting vertical and horizontal stripes running across the entire diameter of the shield. This pattern resembles an equal-armed cross, but it could also be purely decorative.67 Finally, David Woods suggested that the Chi Rho symbol, which is known from imperial coinage and the aforementioned visual representations, may have appeared on the shields of the scholae palatinae, depicted in the insignia of the eastern and western magistri officiorum.68 The shield shown on the far right has starlike, intersecting, yellow stripes that widen outwards from the centre. In the case of the magister officiorum per Orientem (fig. 12), the sign is formed by three lines, which would also correspond to the lines of a Chi Rho (also formally identifiable as a symbol called Chi-Iota).69 The background of the shield is red. The insignia illustration of the magister officiorum per Occidentem shows four intersecting lines, and the background of the shield is green, forming an interesting parallel to the depiction in Ravenna.70 While Woods’s hypothesis seems plausible, it must be noted that all the representations in the different copies of the Notitia Dignitatum lack the rho loop, which may not have been understood by the medieval and early modern copyists.

Figure 12. Notitia Dignitatum. Insignia of the Magister officiorum per Orientem

Figure 12. Notitia Dignitatum. Insignia of the Magister officiorum per Orientem

Written and illustrated in Basel, 1436. Copy of a Carolingian manuscript, which was then preserved in the cathedral library of Speyer (now destroyed), itself copied from a late Roman original.
Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, MS. Canon. Misc. 378, fol. 101r

Credit: Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, CC BY-NC 4.0

Archaeological Finds of 4th- and 5th-Century Shields

32No shields from the 4th and 5th centuries have been found with enough of their body preserved to discern their overall decoration. Although some shield bosses were found in graves, they are generally undecorated or only decorated with geometrical designs.

  • 71 Odenweller 2019, no. 130 (Eltville) with table 25, no. 174a (Eppstein) with table 33, no. 194c (Gie (...)

33Shields bearing recognizable Christian symbols first appeared around the mid-7th century in weapon burials, for instance, in southern and western Germany. These had a decoration of a cross attached to the shield boss, on which further small equal-armed crosses were engraved. Small crosses also decorated the shield bar and the shield nails of these objects.71

Summary

34In the case of shields, the lack of physical artefacts is offset by their widespread representation in visual culture. In these examples, the Chi Rho on shields highlights the symbol’s powerful duality as both a Christian and imperial signifier, as well as a sign of both imperial and divine authority. The earliest textual source, Lactantius, recounts how Constantine had a divine vision instructing him to mark a Christian symbol on the soldiers’ shields. This account is later confirmed by Eusebius, who describes the symbol as the Chi Rho. It subsequently became a prominent symbol on the shields of the Roman emperors and the soldiers of their innermost guard unit. The symbol’s inclusion on shields – objects explicitly tied to war and protection – implied divine favour not only for the emperor, but also for his forces, framing military victory as a Christian triumph.

35The Chi Rho emblem was widely depicted on shields from the 4th to 6th centuries, especially on coinage. On the 4th-century coins, it is featured on shields held by emperors such as Constantine’s son Constantius II, who used the symbol to claim dynastic legitimacy. Furthermore, the placement of the Chi Rho on ceremonial objects, such as the Missorium of Constantius II, and its incorporation into public monuments, such as the Columns of Theodosius and Arcadius, illustrate its integration into the visual culture of Imperial Rome. By appearing on coins, mosaics, and monumental art, the Chi Rho conveyed its message to a variety of audiences: soldiers, citizens, the elite, and even foreign dignitaries.

36In monumental imperial art, such as the columns of Theodosius and Arcadius, soldiers of guard units in direct contact with the emperor hold shields bearing Chi Rho motifs. These are sometimes accompanied by alpha and omega, symbolizing Christian victory and divine favour. Two depictions of shield emblemata in the Notitia Dignitatum may reflect these units’ close contact with the emperor. When the Chi Rho shield appears richly adorned with gemstones, gold, and vibrant colours (as on the missorium and the mosaic in Ravenna), it may depict the emperor’s personal shield. From Arcadius’s reign onwards, the Chi Rho disappeared as the emperor’s shield emblem on coins in the Eastern Roman Empire, initially being replaced by the cross. It only remained in visual culture through images of Victory inscribing a shield (with the exception of the 6th-century Ravenna mosaic).

Helmets

Archaeological Finds during the Principate

37During the Principate, helmets were often the most highly decorated piece of a soldier’s equipment. The iron or copper-alloy helmet bowl, which was made in one piece, offered plenty of space for decorations, as did the cheek pieces.72 Infantry helmets were often sparsely decorated with just a few decorated rivets or with simple cut-outs from copper-alloy sheet metal (fig. 13).73 In contrast, cavalry helmets were always lavishly decorated with elaborate relief decorations often covering the entire helmet bowl and the cheek pieces (fig. 14).

Figure 13. Roman infantry helmet from Leiden (Netherlands), later 1st century CE

Figure 13. Roman infantry helmet from Leiden (Netherlands), later 1st century CE

Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. no. h 2018/7.1

Credit: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, CC0 1.0

Figure 14. Cheek piece of Roman cavalry helmet from the Waal near IJzendoorn (Netherlands), 1st century CE

Figure 14. Cheek piece of Roman cavalry helmet from the Waal near IJzendoorn (Netherlands), 1st century CE

Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. no. e 1963/6.1

Credit: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, CC0 1.0

  • 74 Schamper 2015, p. 93.
  • 75 Schamper 2015, pp. 94 and 120.
  • 76 Bongartz 2013, pp. 66-67. For an example see https://hdl.handle.net/21.12126/202627.
  • 77 Schamper 2015, pp. 103-116. See also Fischer 2019, p. 178, fig. 299.

38The most common motif was the eagle, which symbolized Jupiter, the protector of Roman soldiers in battle.74 Slightly less frequent are depictions of Minerva, Mars, and Victory.75 The most common apotropaion on helmets was the snake, usually positioned at the back of the head (fig. 15).76 Wreaths of laurel or oak leaves, which represent honours won in battle, also appear, as do a great variety of other gods.77

Figure 15. Roman cavalry helmet from Vechten (Netherlands), second half of the 2nd century CE

Figure 15. Roman cavalry helmet from Vechten (Netherlands), second half of the 2nd century CE

Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. no. .f 2016/3.1

Credit: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, CC0 1.0

  • 78 Fischer 2019, pp. 181-183, figs 306.1 and 307-309. See for instance the Theilenhofen helmet: https: (...)
  • 79 See Fischer 2019, pp. 182-183, figs 307-308. For an example, see also https://hdl.handle.net/21.121 (...)
  • 80 Miks 2008b, p. 449.

39As we will see later, 3rd-century cavalry helmets foreshadow the late antique ridge helmets. While the helmet from Gerulata is crowned by a (rather small) eagle, helmets of the Theilenhofen and Heddernheim types already feature a high ridge running front to back, with an eagle sitting in front of it (fig. 16).78 Helmets of the Ostrov type were in the shape of a Phrygian cap, ending in an eagle’s head (fig. 17).79 All the latter three types have the eagle positioned directly above the wearer’s forehead, in a position compared by Christian Miks to a figurehead.80

Figure 16. Helmet from Theilenhofen (Germany), second half of the 2nd to first half of the 3rd centuries CE

Figure 16. Helmet from Theilenhofen (Germany), second half of the 2nd to first half of the 3rd centuries CE

Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum

Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Sailko, CC BY-SA 3.0

Figure 17. Helmet from Ostrov (Romania), second half of the 2nd century CE

Figure 17. Helmet from Ostrov (Romania), second half of the 2nd century CE

Constanța, History and Archaeology Museum

Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Cristian Chirita, CC BY-SA 3.0

4th- to 6th-Century Depictions of Helmets

  • 81 Eusebius Caesarensis, De vita Constantini, 1.31: ἃ δὴ καὶ κατὰ τοῦ κράνους φέρειν εἴωθε κἀν τοῖς με (...)

40According to Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine began wearing the letters of chi and rho on his helmet after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312. After describing this victorious symbol built of the letters chi and rho, Eusebius mentions that ‘the emperor also became accustomed to bearing these upon his helmet in the times that followed’.81 This implies that Constantine continued to wear the symbol on his helmet as a customary practice in subsequent times, thereby reinforcing its role as a significant emblem of protection and authority. It is therefore all the more remarkable that the emperor is depicted on two coin issues with a helmet bearing a Chi Rho in the pictorial tradition.

  • 82 RIC VII Ticinum 36; Odahl 1981, p. 19; Overbeck 2000 and Latimer 2022, p. 181 sq. On the date see: (...)

41The famous silver medallion of Ticinum (fig. 18), issued between 315 and 319 as a luxury donative given to selected individuals by Emperor Constantine, depicts a Chi Rho on a ridge helmet worn by the emperor.82 The obverse of this medallion features a three-quarter portrait of Constantine the Great, helmeted and armoured, and holding the reins of a horse in his right hand. His shield features the she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus. The emperor’s helmet is adorned with a Chi Rho symbol positioned prominently on a round disc at the base of the crest above his forehead. Placing the Chi Rho on the emperor’s helmet is significant as it reinforces not only Constantine’s role as a Christian ruler, but also as a ruler under divine protection. Depicting this symbol on the emperor’s personal attire would have served to communicate his victorious role in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, an event that Constantine attributed to divine intervention, and which ultimately influenced his choice to adopt the Chi Rho as his imperial standard. This silver medallion, which was likely presented to high-ranking officials and military officers, highlights the religious shift within the imperial court and its strategic integration into the visual language of authority.

Figure 18. Silver medallion of Constantine the Great wearing a helmet with a Chi Rho, minted in Ticinum (Pavia) between 315 and 319

Figure 18. Silver medallion of Constantine the Great wearing a helmet with a Chi Rho, minted in Ticinum (Pavia) between 315 and 319

Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Otto Nickl, CC BY-SA 4.0

42A further example of the Chi Rho’s usage on the emperor’s helmet is found on a series of bronze coins minted in Siscia in 319.83 Rather than being depicted on the front of the helmet, the symbol is shown on the side of Constantine’s helmet on a vertical strip above the ear. The representation of the sign may have been placed on the side of the helmet because the emperor’s image was to be depicted in profile, as was common on bronze coins of that period. Only a small group of coins of this series feature the Chi Rho, leading Amber Latimer to suspect that the audience who saw these coins was limited.84 The reverse of the coin features two winged Victories holding a shield inscribed with VOT PR (Vota Populi Romani) and the legend VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP (‘perpetual leader of prosperous victory’), which refers to Constantine’s perpetual leadership and the vows made to secure his continued reign. Another very similar coin type issued in Siscia in the same year 319, also shows the emperor Constantine with a helmet, shield, and spear. Instead of the Chi Rho, it features an equilateral cross with a dot in each corner was placed on the side of the helmet.85

  • 86 Hahn 1981, nos. 3, 5 and 81.3, Sear 1987, nos. 962-967.

43In the following period, coins portraying the emperors in military attire remained widespread, but even though the depictions were highly detailed, the Chi Rho or the cross were no longer depicted on the helmet for a long time. A change did not occur until the last third of the 6th century, when Emperor Justin II (r. 565‑578) had his portrait minted with a cross above the stemma for the first time. During his reign, the imperial crown itself was thus adorned with a small cross. In the coinages of Heraclius (r. 610‑641) and Constans II (r. 641‑668), this cross stemma then seems to have been combined with the helmet in the depictions of the emperors.86

Archaeological Finds of 4th- and 5th-Century Helmets

  • 87 Miks 2008a, p. 7.
  • 88 Miks 2008a, pp. 7-8. Christian Miks argues against the commonly held view that the gilded foil must (...)

44From the second half of the 3rd century onwards, iron helmet bowls were increasingly constructed from two halves or several segments held together by strips, all commonly made from iron. This manufacturing technique was quicker and thus enabled a greater output.87 These helmets are called ridge helmets (Kammhelme) due to their distinctive high ridge running from front to back. The main decoration of all the known ridge helmets from this period appears to have been a covering with a thin foil of gilded silver or copper alloy.88 This was commonly decorated with stamped designs in abstract forms, such as X- or S‑shaped bands, dots, circle-and-dots, lunulae or drop shapes, all of which followed the outer edge of the construction elements.

45The oldest known helmet with decorations that could have been interpreted as Christian is dated to 319‑323.89 Found in the Helenaveen bog near Deurne (Netherlands), it belongs to the Deurne-Berkasovo II type of cavalry helmet. Its bowl consists of six elements connected by vertical strips and features a ridge running from the front to the back (fig. 19).90 The helmet is covered in a gilded silver foil and decorated with stamped designs of X‑shaped bands that follow the construction elements. In addition, each of the bowl elements is decorated with a large anchor. Used in pagan iconography as a vaguely positive metaphor for reaching a safe harbour at the end of life’s journey, the anchor had been ‘Christianized’ by the 4th century, with the ’safe harbour’ being interpreted as the Christian heaven. This symbol was one of the first to appear in Christian grave inscriptions and was already in use in the 3rd century.91 Two inscriptions were carefully incised into the helmet, one of which indicates the owner’s unit: STABLESIA VI, the sixth Stablesian Guard.92 This was an elite cavalry unit that accompanied the emperor on his travels through the Empire.

Figure 19. Late Roman helmet from near Deurne (Netherlands), 319‑323 CE

Figure 19. Late Roman helmet from near Deurne (Netherlands), 319‑323 CE

Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. no. .k 1911/4.1 5

Credit: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, CC0 1.0

  • 93 Manojlović-Marijanski 1973.
  • 94 The following after: Thomas 1971, pp. 17-25, pls 29-37; Miks 2008a, p. 8, fig. 13.
  • 95 Cameron 2011.

46Other helmets of the Deurne-Berkasovo II type, also covered with gilded silver foil with stamped designs, were additionally decorated with ‘gemstones’ made from glass paste. These imitated semi-precious gemstones in terms of their colouring and cut, and were set into bezels mounted onto the bowl. Examples includes the Berkasovo I helmet from the Berkasovo (Serbia) find or the helmet found in the caisson of the Roman bridge near the late antique fort of Contra Aquincum at Budapest (Hungary). The stamped designs of the Berkasovo I helmet, which date to the first quarter of the 4th century, are restricted to the aforementioned abstract forms.93 However, the Budapest helmet, dated to the latter third of the 4th century, also features figurative decorations: a wide band at the edge of the helmet bowl, running from temple to temple, is alternately decorated with glass gems in bezels and small, rectangular reliefs framed by notches and dots (fig. 20).94 In each of these, a single figure or object is discernible, with the left side of the helmet much better preserved than the right. Above the wearer’s left temple, a Victory holding a wreath and palm frond is depicted. This is followed by a glass stone, which is followed by two reliefs of striding lions flanking another stone. After another glass stone, there are three reliefs, two of which are identifiable as another Victory (holding two wreaths) and a seated Jupiter facing left, holding a globe and staff. This is followed again by striding lions, this time flanking a krater. This helmet is an exceptionally late example of depictions of Victory and Jupiter on helmets, even if they are much smaller than the depictions of gods on helmets from the Principate. It is possible that this decoration was connected to the revival of pagan culture under Julian (r. 361‑363). However, openly pagan groups existed both before and after Julian’s reign, especially among the elite, who we can assume included the owner of this lavishly decorated helmet.95

Figure 20. Late Roman helmet from Budapest (Hungary)

Figure 20. Late Roman helmet from Budapest (Hungary)

Budapest, Aquincumi Múzeum

Credit: P.F.J. Franzen, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

  • 96 Miks 2008a, p. 8.
  • 97 The following after Kocsis 2013.
  • 98 Prins 2000.
  • 99 Kocsis 2013, fig. 3.
  • 100 Miks 2008a, pp. 8-11.
  • 101 Kocsis 2013, p. 124.

47The first clearly Christian symbol to appear on helmets is the Chi Rho, found on two types of helmets dating to the late 4th and early 5th centuries. The first type belongs to the Dunapentele-Intercisa category, thought to have been used by the infantry.96 Some of these helmets had a propeller-shaped gilded bronze decoration with a Chi Rho in a round frame at the top. This decoration was mounted in front of the ridge, directly above the forehead (fig. 21). This is the position that had previously been reserved for Jupiter’s eagle on 3rd-century cavalry helmets of the Theilenhofen, Heddernheim, and Ostrov types (see above). With twenty-one known finds to date, the Chi Rho decorations are reasonably well represented among the rather scarce late Roman helmet finds.97 Only one of these decorations was found together with the (remains of a) helmet. This is the heavily reconstructed helmet from Kessel-Hout (Province of Limburg, Netherlands; fig. 22), which was found together with ten gold solidi covering the period from Valens (r. 364‑378) to Constantine III (r. 407‑411).98 Laszlo Kocsis archaeologically dated the Chi Rho finds to the late 4th and early 5th centuries.99 Helmets of the Deurne-Berkasovo II type, which are thought to have been used by the cavalry, may also be decorated with a Chi Rho.100 The decoration was stamped into a thin metal sheet of gilded silver attached to the nasale (nose protection) of the helmet. Kocsis dated this decoration between the last third of the 4th and the first quarter of the 5th century.101 However, the depictions of both the helmets and the Chi Rho suggest that these decorations would be more accurately dated to the first half of the 4th century, as the Chi Rho is closely connected to Constantine and his sons. Both types of Chi Rho decoration sit in very similar positions, namely on or above the forehead. They also have in common that they could be added to the helmet after it was finished and possibly also removed without compromising the helmet if the owner wished.

Figure 21. Ridge from a ridge helmet, with a Chi Rho at the front

Figure 21. Ridge from a ridge helmet, with a Chi Rho at the front

From the art market

Credit: S. Hoss, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Figure 22. Ridge helmet of the Dunapentele/Intercisa type, with Chi Rho symbol, found in the Maas near Kessel (Netherlands)

Figure 22. Ridge helmet of the Dunapentele/Intercisa type, with Chi Rho symbol, found in the Maas near Kessel (Netherlands)

Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Kleon3, CC BY-SA 4.0

  • 102 On the Augsburg-Pfersee helmets, see Klumbach 1973, pp. 95-102, figs 21-22, pls 42.2-44. On the Jar (...)
  • 103 These arrow-shaped decorations are also known from tunics, see Pásztókai-Szeőke and Paetz gen. Schi (...)

48Despite this evidence, it is important to also bear in mind that a number of contemporary helmets were only decorated with abstract forms. These include the cavalry helmets of the Deurne-Berkasovo type from Jarak (Serbia), the Berkasovo II helmet, as well as the two helmets found together at Augsburg-Pfersee (Germany).102 In addition to the stamped bands along the edges of the construction, the Augsburg-Pfersee helmet, now in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, has dotted arrows in the corners where the two parts of the helmet bowl join the ridge.103

  • 104 For Spangenhelme of the Baldenstein type see Steuer 1987, pp. 191-197, figs 1-3.
  • 105 Pirling 1964.
  • 106 The following after Vogt 2006, pp. 109-137.
  • 107 Snyder 2003, pp. 52-53.
  • 108 Steuer 1987, pp. 191-195, figs 1-3. See for instance: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/sear (...)
  • 109 Vogt 2006, pp. 192-293.

49Helmets from the mid-5th to the late 6th centuries are of the so-called Spangenhelme of the Baldenheim type.104 The most famous example of the type is probably the golden helmet found in the princely tomb of Apvar at Krefeld-Gellep (Germany).105 The decorations of these helmets are usually found on the copper-alloy framework of the helmet, such as the lower rim/ring or the Spangen (straps or metal strips) that hold the elements of the bowl together. All of these parts could be decorated with thin, gilded silver or copper-alloy foil bearing punched designs.106 Some of these helmets depict Latin crosses or jewelled crosses (crux gemmata, fig. 23), occasionally accompanied by the letters alpha and omega, or a human mask between two quadrupedal predators (interpreted as Daniel in the lion’s den) on the rim/ring directly above the wearer’s nose and on the opposite side on the neck. These depictions can be regarded with greater certainty as Christian themes. Other themes depicted frequently occur in Christian contexts, but are not limited to them: vine tendrils forming medallions containing various animals or objects, or hunting scenes, both reminiscent of contemporary church mosaics. While hunting was generally seen as the ‘sport of gentlemen’, the vine, a symbol of the good life during pagan times (and connected to Dionysos/Bacchus), retained this meaning, but could also be interpreted by Christians as alluding to the Eucharist.107 The depictions inside the vine medallions include liturgical instruments, fish, deer, birds picking at grapes, and other playing animals.108 From the sixty (elements of) Baldenheim helmets collected by Mahand Vogt, thirty-one are preserved to a degree that allows an assessment of their decoration; the remaining parts are either not decorated at all or consist only of a cheek piece or various fragments.109 Thirteen of these (and thus almost 42%) have a decoration that is clearly Christian and apotropaic (Latin cross, alpha and omega, or Daniel in the lion’s den), while eighteen others are decorated with more general themes, such as the vine tendrils or hunting scenes.

Figure 23. Spangenhelm dated to 500‑533 CE, from a grave in Planig, near Bad Kreuznach (Germany)

Figure 23. Spangenhelm dated to 500‑533 CE, from a grave in Planig, near Bad Kreuznach (Germany)

Mainz, Landesmuseum

Credit: Ursula Rudischer, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Summary

  • 110 Réfi Oskó 2021.
  • 111 Cameron 2011.

50The first theme that could (also) be interpreted as Christian, the anchor, appears on an early 4th-century helmet. However, pagan themes such as Victory and Jupiter still appear (even if very small) on a helmet dating to the latter third of the 4th century. Both Victory and Jupiter were strongly tied to the imperial cult during the Principate, a fact still visible in the Notitia Dignitatum, dated to around 400‑425.110 From 380 CE on, Christianity was the state religion in the Roman Empire, but before and after this date many groups, especially among the elite, were still openly pagan.111 In addition, it is possible that this helmet was connected to the pagan revival under Emperor Julian. Ridge helmets could have small Chi Rho decorations that could easily be added or removed, but which sat in a prominent position above the forehead. By archaeological context this decoration is dated to the late 4th and early 5th centuries, but it has parallels in the depiction of helmets on coins from the early reign of Constantine and may in fact have occurred a bit earlier. The presence of the Chi Rho symbol on 4th-century helmets reflects a complex blend of religious, dynastic, and protective symbolism, particularly in the context of imperial power and military iconography.

51However, contemporary helmets could also just be decorated with abstract symbols of a neutral character. These helmets were not less expensively decorated, as they were also covered in gilded silver foil, and one particularly lavish example was further adorned with glass paste ‘jewels’ studding the bowl. From the mid-5th to the late 6th centuries, pressblech decorations appeared all over the helmet bowl. These could either include distinctly Christian themes, such as Latin crosses or Daniel in the lion’s den, or vaguer themes that could be interpreted in a Christian manner or not.

Conclusions

52As we have seen above, the analysis of the shields and helmets indicates the overall rarity of the occurrence of Christian symbols or scenes on (elements of) military equipment between the 4th and 5th/6th centuries. We can now state that the shields and helmets demonstrate a clear chronological evolution in their decorations with Christian symbols between the 4th and 6th/7th centuries.

53No symbols of pagan religion, of magic, or of an apotropaic nature can be discerned on most of the archaeological finds of helmets or shields from the early 4th to the 5th/6th centuries. Jupiter, Mars, Minerva, and the other Roman gods previously so beloved by the army and so ubiquitous on their equipment were definitely abandoned from the 5th century onwards, as were their symbols (e.g. eagle, thunderbolt). Even earlier, in the early 4th century, long-established apotropaia, such as the pelta or the snake, are no longer used to decorate Roman militaria. When unambiguously religious symbols do appear, they are Christian in character. We have found only two exceptions to this pattern: the helmet from Budapest (dated to the latter third of the 4th century), and some insignia and shield emblems depicted in the Notitia Dignitatum that generally stood for victoriousness (such as Victoria), or that were associated with the imperial cult in particular, such as eagles.

54The depictions associated with a Christian reading may be grouped into abstract symbols, on the one hand, and Christian themes on the other.

Abstract Christian Symbols

55As shown above, the chronological development of the use of Christian symbols is roughly similar for both the shields – transmitted exclusively through depictions – and the helmets – of which many are preserved in the archaeological record.

  • 112 Latimer 2022, pp. 341-388.

56During Constantine’s reign and beyond, the Chi Rho evolved from a personal emblem into a widely recognized representation of divine sanction. The events surrounding the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 cemented its place in Roman iconography. As Latimer has shown recently, Constantine’s endorsement of Christianity transformed the Chi Rho from a ‘niche symbol’ into a signifier of not just personal faith, but also imperial power and divine approval. This transformation was particularly potent when the symbol was placed on shields, which were traditionally symbols of military strength and protection. Thus, the Chi Rho became an assertion of both religious identity and imperial invincibility – a symbol that resonated across the Empire and persisted into later centuries.112

57Although the Chi Rho is clearly a symbol closely connected to the Christian religion, it was deployed by Constantine and his direct successors as a marker for the emperor, signalling the emperor’s presence. According to depictions, it was displayed on Constantine’s personal helmet, where it took the place of Jupiter’s eagle, which had sat at the front above the brow on earlier helmets. Thus, Jupiter had truly been superseded by Christ. The emperors of the Constantinian dynasty also started using the Chi Rho on their own shields and those of their personal bodyguards. The helmets bearing a Chi Rho on the ridge or the nasale may also have belonged to men who were literally close to the emperor. When worn by the emperor’s bodyguard and others near him, the Chi Rho symbolized both a requirement for a higher level of loyalty and a reward for it, marking the wearer as especially favoured.

58One piece of evidence for the Chi Rho’s direct link to the highest office is that it was depicted on the Column of Arcadius, not only on the shields of the Roman emperor’s bodyguards, but also on the hexagonal shields of the vanquished Goths on the tropaion and on several captured vexilla (see above). Here, the Chi Rho may have been used by the Roman artists to symbolize the defeat of the bodyguard of Gainas, the leader of the Goths – and thus of the enemy’s leader himself.

59The Chi Rho was prevalent on military equipment in the 4th century. From the beginning of the 5th century onwards, both the staurogram and the alpha and omega started to appear on elements of military equipment. The ‘Latin’ cross first appears on the emperor’s shield on coins in the Theodosian dynasty (end of the 4th and first quarter of 5th centuries). From the mid-5th century onwards, it is also depicted on helmets found during archaeological excavations.

Christian Themes

  • 113 Snyder 2003, pp. 27-29 and Cooley 2012, p. 232.
  • 114 Snyder 2003, pp. 52-53.
  • 115 See the insightful remarks in Odenweller 2019, pp. 40-42.

60In addition to these more abstract Christian symbols, Christian themes were also depicted on helmets. These themes differ from the symbols as they either try to illustrate a biblical story or depict animals, plants, or objects from the real world. Among the latter are the depictions of anchors, found on a helmet of the early 4th century, and vine scrolls found on the Spangenhelme dating to the mid-5th to 6th/7th centuries. Both the anchor and the vine had been used in pagan iconography as rather vaguely positive symbols. They were quickly adopted by the Christians, who ’Christianized’ their meaning. The anchor, as a metaphor for reaching a safe harbour at the end of life, was reinterpreted by the 3rd century and was one of the first symbols to appear in Christian grave inscriptions.113 The vine, a symbol of the good life and connected to Dionysos and Bacchus in the pagan world, was still understood by Christians in a similar way, but was now associated with the Eucharist.114 The second group of themes required a deeper knowledge of the Bible and theology to be deciphered. Among them are depictions of Daniel in the lion’s den, the tree of life, a chalice flanked by peacocks and doves, hares or fish. Each of these had its own meaning within an early Christian context, but was more or less neutral – or rather indecipherable – to outsiders.115 As such, these themes were useful in many ways: they were easily readable for Christians and non-Christians alike. For Christians, these symbols did not require a great deal of knowledge of biblical stories or theology, yet they were not an overt proclamation of their Christianity. They could be used on expensive elements of military equipment and be visible to everyone without causing offence.

61Overall, we can observe that, between the extensive decoration of shields, and especially helmets in the 3rd century, and the reappearance of a greater amount of ornamentation in the mid-5th century, there was a period of about a century and a half in which most of them were hardly decorated at all. Even those decorated with precious materials display little more than vague depictions or ornamentation devoid of religious connotations (glass ‘gemstones’, simple geometric decoration, etc.). We therefore propose the hypothesis that this restraint may be attributed to the influence of Christianity.

62It is very likely that the 4th to the mid-5th centuries was a period of transition in which depictions of the old gods and their symbols were frowned upon, but which still lacked generally accepted Christian depictions and symbols that could be used instead. The first widely used symbol was the Chi Rho, which first appeared on depictions of Constantine’s personal helmet and vexillum, and then on (depictions of) his son’s shield, and then on shields and helmets worn by men directly connected to the emperor. Around the turn from the 4th to the 5th century, other symbols (crosses, crux gemmata) also started to appear, gradually replacing the Chi Rho.

63There are only two exceptions to this development. The first is the use of another vague theme adapted to a Christian meaning, namely the anchor, on the Deurne helmet from the early 4th century. However, the use of this theme on Christian gravestones during the late 3rd century would explain this singular occurrence. By contrast, the decoration of the late 4th-century helmet from Budapest featuring Jupiter and Victory is very surprising indeed and may have been connected to the revival of pagan culture under Julian (r. 361‑363) or to anti-Christian aristocratic groups of the late 4th century.

64Although Christian symbols, particularly the Chi Rho, gained high visibility in state-sponsored visual culture from the 4th century onwards, they were rarely applied to functional military gear and seem to have been restricted to elite contexts. The iconographic transition from pagan to Christian motifs in military contexts was neither abrupt nor universal, but rather complex, gradual, and often limited to ceremonial representations. The use of Christian symbols on arms and armour served more as an imperial statement than a grassroots expression of faith by the broader military class.

65From the late 5th to the 6th/7th centuries, helmets more frequently featured Latin crosses adorned with gems (crux gemmate), alpha and omega, and distinctly Christian themes, such as Daniel in the lion’s den. These were mounted above the brow or in the neck of the helmet in a clearly apotropaic manner. It seems that, during this period, soldiers revived the practice of seeking divine protection in battle by embellishing their armour with symbols associated with their God and with salvation.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abbreviations

RIC: Roman Imperial Coinage

Works

Abdy R.A. (ed.) 2024, Legion. Life in the Roman Army, exh. cat., London, The British Museum Press.

Alten D. and Zschucke C.‑F. 2004, Die römische Münzserie Beata Tranquillitas in der Prägestätte Trier 321‑323, Trier, Petermännchen, Kleine numismatische Reihe der Trierer Münzfreunde 13.

Barber C. 1990, ‘The imperial panels at San Vitale. A reconsideration’, Byzantine and modern Greek studies 14, pp. 19‑43, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/byz.1990.14.1.19 [restricted access, accessed in June 2025].

Becatti G. 1960, La colonna coclide istoriata. Problemi storici, iconografici, stilistici, Rome, Studi e materiali del Museo dell’Impero romano 6.

Beyeler M. 2011, Geschenke des Kaisers: Studien zur Chronologie, zu den Empfängern und zu den Gegenständen der kaiserlichen Vergabungen im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Berlin, Akademie, Klio Beihefte NF 18.

Bongartz A. 2013, Studien zu römischen Helmen, PhD thesis, Universität zu Köln (unpublished).

Braat W.C. 1973, ‘Der Fund von Deurne, Holland’, in H. Klumbach (ed.), Spätrömische Gardehelme, Munich, Beck, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 15, pp. 51-84, online : https://publikationen.badw.de/en/005714448 [accessed in June 2025].

Bralewski S. 2020, ‘The Labarum – from Crux Dissimulata and Chi-Rho to the Open Image Cross’, Studia Ceranea 10, pp. 243‑258, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/2084-140X.10.11.

Brather-Walter S. and Brather S. 2012, ‘Repräsentation oder Religion? Grabbeigaben und Bestattungsrituale im frühen Mittelalter’, in N. Krohn and S. Ristow (eds), Wechsel der Religionen – Religion des Wechsels. Tagungsbeiträge der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. 5. Religion im archäologischen Befund (Nürnberg, 27.‑28. Mai 2010), Hamburg, Kovač, Studien zu Spätantike und Frühmittelalter 4, pp. 121‑143.

Breeze D.J., Close-Brooks J. and Graham Ritchie J.N. 1976, ‘Soldiers’ Burials at Camelon, Stirlingshire, 1922 and 1975’, Britannia 7, pp. 73‑95.

Brennecke H.C. 2007a, ‘Ecclesia est in re publica, id est in imperio Romano (Optatus III 3). Das Christentum in der Gesellschaft an der Wende zum Konstantinischen Zeitalter’, in in U. Heil, A. von Stockhausen and J. Ulrich (eds) Ecclesia est in re publica. Studien zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte im Kontext des Imperium Romanum, Berlin, De Gruyter, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 100, pp. 69‑102, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110200782.69 [restricted access, accessed in May 2025].

Brennecke H.C. 2007b, ‘»An fidelis ad militiam converti possit«? [Tertullian, de idolatria 19,1]. Frühchristliches Bekenntnis und Militärdienst im Widerspruch?’, in U. Heil, A. von Stockhausen and J. Ulrich (eds) Ecclesia est in re publica. Studien zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte im Kontext des Imperium Romanum, Berlin, De Gruyter, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 100, pp. 179‑231, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110200782.179 [restricted access, accessed in May 2025].

Burandt B.A.N. 2017, ‘Embossed or painted? A new Study on Roman Shield Decoration’ Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 18. ROMEC XVIII : The Visual Impact of the Roman Soldier, ed. S. Hoss, pp. 111-116.

Cameron A. 2011, The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford, Oxford University Press, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199747276.001.0001 [restricted access, accessed in June 2025].

Cameron A. 2015, ‘Christian Conversions in Late Antiquity: Some issues’, in A. Papaconstantinou, N. McLynn and D.L. Schwartz (eds), Conversion in Late Antiquity: Christianity, Islam and Beyond, Farnham, Ashgate, pp. 3‑22.

Cooley A.E. 2012, The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Dautova-Ruševljan V. and Vujović M. 2011, Kasnoantički šlem iz Jarka [Late Roman Helmet from Jarak], Novi Sad, Muzej Vojvodine.

Delbrück R. 1929, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler, Berlin-Leipzig, De Gruyter, Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschichte 2.

Émion M. 2020, ‘Les protectores Augusti’, in C. Wolff and P. Faure (eds), Corps du chef et gardes du corps dans l’armée romaine. Actes du septième congrès de Lyon, 25‑27 octobre 2018, Lyon, Université Jean-Moulin Lyon 3, Collection du Centre d’études romaines et gallo-romaines 53, pp. 473‑496.

Émion M. 2023, Les protectores Augusti (iiievie s. p.C.), 2 vols, Bordeaux, Ausonius, Scripta Antiqua 167.

Feugère M. 1990, ‘Les armes romaines’, in L. Bonnamour (ed.), Du silex à la poudre… 4 000 ans d’armement en val de Saône. Exposition, 1990‑1991, Montagnac, Mergoil, pp. 92‑115.

Fischer T. 2019, Army of the Roman Emperors. Archaeology and History, Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Garipzanov I. 2018, Graphic Signs of Authority in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, 300‑900, Oxford, Oxford University Press, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198815013.001.0001 [restricted access, accessed in June 2025].

Hahn W. 1981, Moneta Imperii Byzantini. Rekonstruktion des Prägeaufbaues auf synoptisch-tabellarischer Grundlage 3. Von Heraclius bis Leo III., Alleinregierung (610‑720). Mit Nachträgen zum 1. und 2. Band, Vienna, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Numismatik 10.

Haldon J.F. 2002, ‘Some Aspects of Early Byzantine Arms and Armour’, in D. Nicolle (ed.), A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour, Woodbridge-Rochester, Boydell Press, pp. 65‑86.

Hatt J.‑J. 1950, ‘La vision de Constantin au sanctuaire de Grand et l’origine celtique du labarum’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 94/1, pp. 83‑86, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1950.78500.

Herz P. 2010, ‘Die Versorgung der römischen Armee mit Waffen und Ausrüstung’, in A. Eich (ed), Die Verwaltung der kaiserzeitlichen römischen Armee. Studien für Hartmut Wolff, Stuttgart, F. Steiner, Historia. Einzelschriften 211, pp. 111‑132.

Hoss S. 2013, ‘A theoretical approch to Roman Military Belts’, in M. Sanader, A. Rendić-Miočević, D. Tončinić and I. Radman-Livaja (ed.), Rimska vojna oprema u pogrebnom kontekstu. Radovi XVII. ROMEC-A [Weapons and Military Equipment in a Funerary Context. Proceedings of the XVIIth Roman Military Equipment Conference], Zagreb, Filozofskog Fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Dizertacije i monografie 7, pp. 317-326.

Hoss S. 2014, Cingulum Militare. Studien zur römischen Soldatengürtel des 1. bis 3. Jh. n. Chr., PhD thesis, Universiteit Leiden (unpublished), online: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/23627.

Hoss S. 2015, ‘Zu einigen Dekorationsmotiven des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts auf den Beschlägen von Soldatengürteln, Schultergurten und Fibeln’, in P. Henrich, C. Miks, J. Obmann and M. Wieland (eds), Non solum – sed etiam. Festschrift für Thomas Fischer zum 65. Geburtstag, Rahden, Leidorf, pp. 199‑206.

Hoss S. 2017, ‘On making honour visible’, in A. Parker (ed.), Ad Vallum. Papers on the Roman Army and Frontiers in Celebration of Dr Brian Dobson, Oxford, BAR, British Series 631, pp. 19‑31.

Hoss S. 2018, ‘Evening the Odds: Apotropaic Protection for Horses’, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 19. Cavalry in the Roman World. Proceedings of the 19th International Roman Military Equipment Conference held in St Andrews, Scotland, 6th‑11th June 2016, ed. J.C.N. Coulston, pp. 81‑101.

Hoss S. 2023, ‘Christian symbols on the weapons and equipment of Roman soldiers’, in S. Golubović (ed.), Limes XXIIII. Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies 2nd − 9th September 2018 Viminacium – Belgrade, Serbia, Belgrade, Insitute of Archaeology, pp. 713‑730.

Hurtado L.W. 2006, ‘The Staurogram in Early Christian Manuscripts: The earliest Visual Reference to the Crucified Jesus?’, in T. Kraus and T. Nicklas (eds), New Testament Manuscripts. Their Texts and Their World, Leiden, Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 2, pp. 207‑226, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047408840_012 [restricted access, accessed in June 2025].

Jelusić M. 2017, ‘Zu einem Schildzeichen der Notitia dignitatum. Neubewertung einer Grabmalerei mit der Darstellung des spätantiken Soldaten Flavius Maximianus aus der Villa Maria-Katakombe in Syrakus (reg. Siciliana/I)’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 47/4, pp. 513‑565, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11588/ak.2017.4.75173.

Klumbach H. 1973, ‘Der Fund von Augsburg-Pfersee, Deutschland’, in H. Klumbach (ed.), Spätrömische Gardehelme, Munich, Beck, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 15, pp. 95‑102, online: https://publikationen.badw.de/de/005714448.

Kocsis L. 2013, ‘A New Piece with a Chi-Rho from the Roman Collection of the Hungarian National Museum’, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 64/1, pp. 113‑129, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/aarch.64.2013.1.5.

Kontny B. 2023, The Archaeology of War. Studies on Weapons of Barbarian Europe in the Roman and Migration Period, Turnhout, Brepols, Warsaw Studies in Archaeology 1.

Latimer A.L. 2022, Decoding Symbolic Signification in Late Antiquity: An Analysis of the Adoption of the ‘Constantinian’ Monogram in the Fourth Century, PhD thesis, University of Alberta (unpublished), online: https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/98c879ae-0bdd-4f99-8f03-f94fa49f505e [accessed in June 2025].

Lenski N. 2018, ‘The Date of the Ticinum Medallion’, Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 47, pp. 251‑296.

Leppin H. 2023, The Early Christians. From the Beginnings to Constantine (transl. K. Luddecke), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Classical Scholarship in Translation.

Manojlović-Marijanski M. 1973, ‘Der Fund von Berkasovo, Jugoslawien’, in H. Klumbach (ed.), Spätrömische Gardehelme, Munich, Beck, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 15, pp. 15‑38, online: https://publikationen.badw.de/de/005714448.

Martínez Chico D. and López Sánchez F. 2016, ‘Une nouvelle variété de solidus au nom de Constance II avec le chrisme à l’intérieur du bouclier’, Bulletin de la Société française de numismatique 71/4, pp. 138‑141, online: https://www.sfnumismatique.org/bsfn-en-ligne/ [accessed in June 2025].

Mayer E. 2002, Rom ist dort, wo der Kaiser ist. Untersuchungen zu den Staatsdenkmälern des dezentralisierten Reiches von Diocletian bis zu Theodosius II, Bonn, Habelt, Mainz, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Monographien 53.

Miks C. 2008a, Vom Prunkstück zum Altmetall. Ein Depot spätrömischer Helmteile aus Koblenz. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum, 26. September bis 16. November 2008, Mainz, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum.

Miks C. 2008b, ‘Spätrömische Kammhelme mit hoher Kammscheibe’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 55/2, pp. 449‑482, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11588/jrgzm.2008.2.16786 [unavailable].

Miks C. and Berg A. von 2014, Ein spätrömischer Depotfund aus Koblenz am Rhein. Studien zu Kammhelmen der späten Kaiserzeit, Mainz, Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Kataloge vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer 44.

Nabbefeld A. 2008, Römische Schilde. Studien zu Funden und bildlichen Überlieferungen vom Ende der Republik bis in die späte Kaiserzeit, Rahden, Leidorf, Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der römischen Provinzen 10.

Odahl C.M. 1981, ‘The Celestial Sign on Constantine’s Shields at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge’, Journal of the Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association 2, pp. 15‑28, online: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/rmmra/vol2/iss1/3.

Odahl C.M. 1983, ‘Christian Symbols in Military Motifs on Constantine’s Coinage’, SAN: Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics 13/4, pp. 64‑72.

Odenweller M. 2019, Studien zum christlichen Einfluss auf die materielle Kultur der Merowingerzeit. Christliche Symbole auf Grabbeigaben aus Gräberfeldern in West- und Süddeutschland, Rahden, Leidorf, Internationale Archäologie 131.

Olovsdotter C. 2005, The Consular Image. An Iconological Study of the Consular Diptychs, Oxford, Gothenburg, Göteborg university, Oxford, BAR, International Series 1376.

Overbeck B. 2000, Das Silbermedaillon aus der Münzstätte Ticinum. Ein erstes numismatisches Zeugnis zum Christentum Constantins I., Milan, Ennerre, Iconografica 3.

Paetz gen. Schieck A. et Pásztókai-Szeöke J. 2016, ‘Imitation and inspiration – Tunics with Arrow-Shaped Purple Decoration in Pannonia’, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 17. Imitation and Inspiration. Proceedings of the 18th International Roman Military Equipment Conference held in Copenhagen, Denmark, 9th‑14th June 2013, ed. X.P. Jensen and T. Grane, pp. 129‑140.

Pirling R. 1964, ‘Ein fränkisches Fürstengrab aus Krefeld-Gellep’, Germania 42, p. 188‑216, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11588/ger.1964.98870.

Prins J. 2000, ‘The ‘Fortune’ of a Late Roman Officer’, Bonner Jahrbücher 200, pp. 309‑328, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11588/bjb.2000.0.62198.

Radnóti-Alföldi M. 1999, Bild und Bildersprache der römischen Kaiser. Beispiele und Analysen, Mainz, P. von Zabern, Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 81.

Rebillard É. 2012a, Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa, 200‑450 CE, Ithaca-London, Cornell University Press.

Rebillard É. 2012b, The Care of the Dead in Late Antiquity, Ithaca-London, Cornell University Press, Cornell studies in classical philology 59.

Réfi Oskó D. 2021, ‘A Notitia Dignitatum képi anyagának vallástudományi vonatkozásai a késő római uralkodókultusz kontextusában’, Vallástudományi Szemle 17/2, pp. 47‑68, online: https://btk.kre.hu/index.php/1765-vallastudomanyi-szemle-2021-2 [accessed in June 2025].

Ristow S. 2012, ‘Christliches im archäologischen Befund – Terminologie, Erkennbarkeit, Diskussionswürdigkeit,” in N. Krohn and S. Ristow (eds.), Wechsel der Religionen – Religion des Wechsels. Tagungsbeiträge der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Spätantike und Frühmittelalter 5. Religion im archäologischen Befund (Nürnberg, 27.‑28. Mai 2010), Hamburg, Kovač, Studien zu Spätantike und Frühmittelalter, pp. 1‑26.

Sarantis A. 2013, ‘Military Equipment and Weaponry: A Bibliographic Essay’, in A. Sarantis and C. Neil (ed.), War and Warfare in Late Antiquity, vol. 1, Leiden, Brill, Late Antique Archaeology 8, pp. 153‑175, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004252585_004 [restricted access, accessed in June 2025].

Schamper J. 2015, Studien zu Paraderüstungsteilen und anderen verzierten Waffen der Römischen Kaiserzeit, Rahden, Leidorf, Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der römischen Provinzen 12.

Sear D.R. 1987, Byzantine Coins and their Values (2nd ed.), London, Seaby.

Serrano del Pozo J. 2021, ‘The Constantinian Labarum and the Christianization of Roman Military Standards’, Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture 15, pp. 37‑64, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18573/jlarc.117.

Shean J.F. 2010, Soldiering for God. Christianity and the Roman Army, Leiden-Boston, Brill, History of Warfare 61, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004187313.i-458 [restricted access, accessed in June 2025].

Snyder G.F. 2003, Ante pacem. Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine, Macon, Mercer University Press.

Sodini J.‑P. 1994, ‘Images sculptées et propagande impériale du ive au vie siècle : recherches récentes sur les colonnes honorifiques et les reliefs politiques à Byzance’, in A. Guillou and J. Durand (ed.), Byzance et les images : cycle de conférences organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel du 5 octobre au 7 décembre 1993, Paris, La documentation française, pp. 41-94.

Speidel M.A. 2006, ‘Militia. Zu Sprachgebrauch und Militarisierung in der kaiserzeitlichen Verwaltung’, in A. Kolb (ed.), Herrschaftsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis. Konzepte, Prinzipien und Startegien der Administration im römischen Kaiserreich. Akten der Tagung an der Universität Zürich, 18.‑20.10.2004, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, pp. 263‑268.

Speidel M.A. 2009, Heer und Herrschaft im Römischen Reich der Hohen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart, Steiner, Mavors 16.

Steuer H. 1987, ‘Helm und Ringschwert. Prunkbewaffnung und Rangabzeichen germanischer Krieger – eine Übersicht’, Studien zur Sachsenforschung 6, pp. 189‑236.

Swift E. 2009, Style and Function in Roman Decoration. Living with Objects and Interiors, Farnham-Burlington, Ashgate.

Theotokis G. 2018, ‘Military Technology: Production and Use of Weapons’, in Y. Stouraitis (ed.), A companion to the Byzantine Culture of War, ca. 300‑1204, Leiden-Boston, Brill, Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine world 3, pp. 440‑472, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004363731_014 [restricted access, accessed in June 2025].

Theuws F. 2019, ‘Burial Archaeology and the Transformation of the Roman World in Northern Gaul (4th to 6th centuries)’, in S. Brather-Walter, Archaeology, History and Biosciences. Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Berlin-Boston, De Gruyter, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 107, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110616651-008 [restricted access, accessed in June 2025].

Thomas E.B. 1971, Helme, Schilde, Dolche. Studien über römisch-pannonische Waffenfunde, Budapest, Akadémiai kiadó, Amsterdam, Hakkert.

Vogt M. 2006, Spangenhelme. Baldenheim und verwandte Typen, Mainz, Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Kataloge vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer 39.

Vus O.V. 2021, ‘Константин I Великий или Констанций II? Идентификация личности «триумфатора» на Керченском миссории 1891 г. [Konstantin I Great or Constantius II? Identification of the Identity of the “Triumphators” at Kerch Missoria 1891]’, in O.V. Vus, O.V. Sukhobokov and O.V. Sukhobokova (eds), LAUREA IIII. Античний світ і Середні віки: Читання пам’яті професора В. І. Кадєєва, Dnipro, pp. 51‑57.

Wiewiorowski J. 2023, ‘Christian Symbolism in the Insignia of the Notitia Dignitatum‘, Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité 70, pp. 163‑191.

Wischmeyer W. 1982, Griechische und lateinische Inschriften zur Sozialgeschichte der Alten Kirche, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, Texte zur Kirchen‑ und Theologiegeschichte 28.

Wischmeyer W. 1992, Von Golgatha zum Ponte Molle. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte der Kirche im dritten Jahrhundert, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 49.

Woods D. 1996, ‘Eusebius, VC 4.21, and the Notitia Dignitatum’, in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia patristica XXIX. Historica, Theologica et Philosophica, Critica et Philologica. Papers presented at the Twelfth International Conference on patristic studies held in Oxford 1995, Leuven, Peeters, pp. 195‑202.

Yoncacı Arslan P. 2015, Christianizing the Skyline: The Appropriation of the Pagan Honorary Column in Early Constantinople, PhD thesis, University of California (unpublished), online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3263z9c2 [accessed in June 2025].

Haut de page

Notes

1 Hoss 2023, pp. 713‑715.

2 Cameron 2015, pp. 3-22.

3 Brennecke 2007a, pp. 74-75.

4 Leppin 2023, pp. 351-354 and 357-365; Brennecke 2007a, pp. 95-97 and 2007b; Shean 2010, pp. 178-215.

5 Speidel 2006, pp. 4-6.

6 Speidel 2006, pp. 4-6; Swift 2009, p. 159; Hoss 2013 and 2014, pp. 288-292.

7 See for instance Wischmeyer 1982 and 1992.

8 See Émion 2020 and 2023.

9 Becatti 1960; Sodini 1994; Radnóti-Alföldi 1999; Mayer 2002; Yoncacı Arslan 2015.

10 Beyeler 2011.

11 Delbrück 1929; Olovsdotter 2005.

12 Sarantis 2013, p. 156.

13 Theotokis 2018, p. 443.

14 Breeze et al. 1976; Fischer 2019, pp. 46-47.

15 Speidel 2009, pp. 417-419; Herz 2010, p. 111; Fischer 2019, pp. 46-47.

16 Hoss 2017, p. 96.

17 Hoss 2023, p. 714, figs 1‑2.

18 Schamper 2015, pp. 92-157.

19 Snakes on helmets, see Bongartz 2013, pp. 66-67 or peltae on belts, chapes, and horse gear, see Hoss 2015, pp. 203-204.

20 See e.g. the image with the areas of responsibility of the magistri officiorum in the Notitia Dignitatum showing arms and armour produced in the fabricae (see fig. 12).

21 See for instance Feugère 1990, Miks and Berg 2014.

22 See Theotokis 2018, p. 441 and Theuws 2019, p. 129. In the Mediterranean, weapon burials are rarer than along the borders of the Empire.

23 Haldon 2002, p. 65.

24 Odenweller 2019, pp. 14-17 and 37-38.

25 Rebillard 2012a, p. 2 and 2012b, pp. 131-134.

26 Brather-Walter and Brather 2012, pp. 128-135.

27 Theuws 2019, pp. 129-136, figs 8.2-4. See also Odenweller 2019, p. 38.

28 Hoss 2017, pp. 23-29.

29 Nabbefeld 2008, p. 33. See also Vegetius, 2.18.1-2.

30 Nabbefeld 2008, pp. 17-25.

31 Nabbefeld 2008, pp. 17-20; Fischer 2019, p. 135. See Abdy 2024, figs 5.17-18 and 6.26.

32 Nabbefeld 2008, pp. 20-25.

33 Nabbefeld 2008, pp. 43-50 and 52.

34 The following after: Burandt 2017, pp. 111-116.

35 Burandt 2017, p. 112.

36 For a depiction see https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.3897296; Burandt 2017, pp. 112-114, fig. 2.

37 See https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.28497639.

38 This topic, which has been dealt with extensively in the literature, was last discussed by Serrano del Pozo 2021 and Latimer 2022.

39 The terminus labarum probably was of Celtic origin, see Hatt 1950.

40 Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, 44.5 : Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus, ut caeleste signum dei notaret in scutis atque ita proelium committeret. Facit ut iussus est et transversa X littera, summo capite circumflexo, Christum in scutis notat. Quo signo armatus exercitus capit ferrum (‘Constantine was warned in a dream, that he should mark the celestial sign of God on his shields and thus commit himself to the battle. He did as he was ordered and with the letter X traversed, with its highest tip bent round, he marked Christ on the shields. Armed with this sign the army took the battlefield.’ Translation by Odahl 1981, p. 16).

41 Hurtado 2006 and Garipzanov 2018, pp. 51-54.

42 See summarizing discussion in Garipzanov 2018, pp. 51-54.

43 Eusebius Caesarensis, De vita Constantini, 4.21.

44 RIC VII Treviri 372; Odahl 1981, p. 19 and 1983, p. 68; Alten and Zschucke 2004; Garipzanov 2018, p. 54. In this emission, the signs on the shields vary from mint to mint. In the scientific literature, the date of the emission ranges from 322 to 326, but as the coins are vota emissions for Crispus’s decennalia, a date around 325/6 appears probable.

45 RIC VIII Rome 232; Latimer 2022, p. 209.

46 RIC VIII Trier 338, p. 341 and 344; Latimer 2022, p. 209 with fig. 5.17. Latimer incorrectly states that these were the first coins with a Chi Rho shown on a shield.

47 Martínez Chico and López Sánchez 2016. For an image see: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Martinez-Chico/publication/301891788/figure/fig2/AS:669528862248965@1536639528264/Solidus-au-nom-de-Constance-II-RIC-VIII-Rome-n-o-225-var.ppm.

48 Martínez Chico and López Sánchez 2016.

49 Vus 2021 and Latimer 2022, p. 349 sq. and fig. 7.3. The object is now held in the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg. Due to the absence of an inscription, the identification of the emperor is uncertain. The figure is generally identified as Constantius II, although Constantine I has also been suggested.

50 Becatti 1960, pp. 83-150 and Yoncacı Arslan 2015, pp. 117-126 with further references.

51 See the discussion in Yoncacı Arslan 2015, p. 124 sq.

52 Becatti 1960, pp. 151-264 and Yoncacı Arslan 2015, pp. 126-138 with many further references.

53 See also Serrano del Pozo 2021, p. 53, n. 62: ‘The labarum depicted among the trophies could have been Imperial banners taken by Gainas and then recovered.’

54 Kontny 2023, p. 204 and 218 and fig 5.8.2.

55 RIC X Honorius 1331-1332.

56 RIC X Valentinian III 2017.

57 RIC X Maiorianus 2605-2608, others from Arles and Mediolanum, see RIC X Maiorianus 2612-2614 and 2623-2639.

58 RIC X Arcadius 85-100. See also Bralewski 2020, p. 250, fig. 7.

59 See e.g. RIC X Arcadius 95 (S), with an image: http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.10.arc_e.95.

60 E.g. RIC X Arcadius 10-15, 28, 32 and 101-105 and RIC X Theodosius II (East) 205-206 and 420. Under Leo there were bronze emissions for his wife Verina with a similar reverse: RIC X Leo I (East) 655-656. See also Odahl 1983, p. 71 with fig. 16; Serrano del Pozo 2021, fig. 7.

61 RIC X Honorius 1333.

62 Barber 1990.

63 Jelusić 2017; Wiewiorowski 2023 with further references.

64 Wiewiorowski 2023.

65 Notitia dignitatum in partibus orientis, 5.7 and 12, see Wiewiorowski 2023, p. 173.

66 Jelusić 2017. The tomb of Flavius Maximianus was discovered in 1964 in the Villa Maria catacomb in Syracuse. It features extensive late antique wall paintings, including a detailed depiction of the military equipment of the deceased. Through careful analysis and through comparison with the Notitia Dignitatum depictions, Marco Jelusić could identify the shield emblem depicted in the wall painting as that of the Mattiarii Iuniores, corroborating the inscription and aiding in dating the tomb to the late 4th or early 5th century.

67 Wiewiorowski 2023, p. 176.

68 Notitia dignitatum in partibus orientis, 11; Notitia dignitatum in partibus occidentis, 9; Woods 1996.

69 See for instance Odenweller 2019, p. 53.

70 Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, MS. Canon. Misc. 378, fol. 141r.

71 Odenweller 2019, no. 130 (Eltville) with table 25, no. 174a (Eppstein) with table 33, no. 194c (Giengen) with tables 29-30.

72 For examples, see Abdy 2024, figs 3.39, 4.9-11 and 5.14.

73 Fischer 2019, pp. 112-118. Also see https://hdl.handle.net/21.12126/233194.

74 Schamper 2015, p. 93.

75 Schamper 2015, pp. 94 and 120.

76 Bongartz 2013, pp. 66-67. For an example see https://hdl.handle.net/21.12126/202627.

77 Schamper 2015, pp. 103-116. See also Fischer 2019, p. 178, fig. 299.

78 Fischer 2019, pp. 181-183, figs 306.1 and 307-309. See for instance the Theilenhofen helmet: https://www.gnm.de/objekte/paradehelm.

79 See Fischer 2019, pp. 182-183, figs 307-308. For an example, see also https://hdl.handle.net/21.12126/202628

80 Miks 2008b, p. 449.

81 Eusebius Caesarensis, De vita Constantini, 1.31: ἃ δὴ καὶ κατὰ τοῦ κράνους φέρειν εἴωθε κἀν τοῖς μετὰ ταῦτα χρόνοις ὁ βασιλεύς. Another passage might also have alluded to the placement of the Chi Rho on Constantine’s helmet when Eusebius (De vita Constantini, 3.2) writes: φανερὸν ἑαυτὸν καθίστη, νῦν μὲν τὸ πρόσωπον τῷ σωτηρίῳ κατασφραγιζόμενος σημείῳ, νῦν δ’ ἐναβρυνόμενος τῷ νικητικῷ τροπαίῳ (‘He made himself manifest, at one moment marking his face/front with the saving sign, at another adorning himself with the victorious trophy.’).

82 RIC VII Ticinum 36; Odahl 1981, p. 19; Overbeck 2000 and Latimer 2022, p. 181 sq. On the date see: Lenski 2018.

83 RIC VII Siscia 61; Odahl 1981, p. 19 and 1983, p. 68; Latimer 2022, p. 182 sq. For an image see: https://constantinethegreatcoins.com/symbols/Siscia61.jpg and https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/uploaded/victor/20240616_siscia_61_Chi Rho.jpg [both accessed in June 2025].

84 Latimer 2022, p. 183.

85 RIC VII Siscia 84. For an image see: https://constantinethegreatcoins.com/symbols/Siscia_84.jpg [accessed in June 2025].

86 Hahn 1981, nos. 3, 5 and 81.3, Sear 1987, nos. 962-967.

87 Miks 2008a, p. 7.

88 Miks 2008a, pp. 7-8. Christian Miks argues against the commonly held view that the gilded foil must mean that these were the helmets of officers.

89 Braat 1973. See also https://hdl.handle.net/21.12126/138311.

90 Miks 2008a, pp. 8-11.

91 Snyder 2003, pp. 27-29 and Cooley 2012, p. 232.

92 See a detailed picture under https://hdl.handle.net/21.12126/138311.

93 Manojlović-Marijanski 1973.

94 The following after: Thomas 1971, pp. 17-25, pls 29-37; Miks 2008a, p. 8, fig. 13.

95 Cameron 2011.

96 Miks 2008a, p. 8.

97 The following after Kocsis 2013.

98 Prins 2000.

99 Kocsis 2013, fig. 3.

100 Miks 2008a, pp. 8-11.

101 Kocsis 2013, p. 124.

102 On the Augsburg-Pfersee helmets, see Klumbach 1973, pp. 95-102, figs 21-22, pls 42.2-44. On the Jarak helmet see Dautova-Ruševljan and Vujović 2011.

103 These arrow-shaped decorations are also known from tunics, see Pásztókai-Szeőke and Paetz gen. Schieck 2016.

104 For Spangenhelme of the Baldenstein type see Steuer 1987, pp. 191-197, figs 1-3.

105 Pirling 1964.

106 The following after Vogt 2006, pp. 109-137.

107 Snyder 2003, pp. 52-53.

108 Steuer 1987, pp. 191-195, figs 1-3. See for instance: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/24685.

109 Vogt 2006, pp. 192-293.

110 Réfi Oskó 2021.

111 Cameron 2011.

112 Latimer 2022, pp. 341-388.

113 Snyder 2003, pp. 27-29 and Cooley 2012, p. 232.

114 Snyder 2003, pp. 52-53.

115 See the insightful remarks in Odenweller 2019, pp. 40-42.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. Detail of a plaster cast of Trajan’s Column depicting Roman legionaries with scuta exhibiting decorations in relief
Légende Rome, Museum of Roman Civilization, Rome
Crédits Credit: S. Hoss, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M
Titre Figure 2. Bronze coin (follis) of Caesar Crispus, minted at Trier, 325/6 CE
Légende RIC VII Trier 372
Crédits Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Valentinian364, CC BY-SA 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 222k
Titre Figure 3. Gold solidus minted at Trier between 353 and 355 CE
Légende RIC VIII Trier 344. Obverse: Emperor Constantius II in military attire holding a shield with a Chi RhoBerlin, Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen, no. inv. 18200306
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 498k
Titre Figure 4. Silver missorium from Kerch (Crimea), probably commissioned by Constantius II
Légende St Petersburg, Hermitage Museum
Crédits Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Hermitage Museum, CC BY-SA 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,6M
Titre Figure 5. Fragment of the spiral relief of the column of Theodosius I from the Forum Theodosii in Constantinople
Légende Istanbul, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Istanbul, inv. no. D-DAI-IST-R6408_152113,02
Crédits Credit: Urs Peschlow/Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Istanbul. By kind permission
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 857k
Titre Figure 6. Drawings of the Column of Arcadius, erected after Arcadius’s victory over the Visigothic comes Gainas
Légende Cambridge, Trinity College Library, The Freshfield Album (1574), MS O.17.2, fol. 12r‑13r
Crédits Credit: Trinity College, Cambridge, CC BY-NC 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 532k
Titre Figure 7. Gold solidus of Honorius, minted in Ravenna in 422 CE on the occasion of the emperor’s tricennalia
Légende London, British Museum, inv. no. 1935,1117.761
Crédits Credit: The Trustees of the British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 993k
Titre Figure 8. Solidus of Maiorianus, Ravenna, 457‑461 CE
Légende Obverse: portrait of the emperorBerlin, Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen, inv. no. 18200549
Crédits Credit: Lutz-Jürgen Lübke (Lübke und Wiedemann), Public Domain Mark 1.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 499k
Titre Figure 9. Bronze AE3 of Arcadius, Antioch, Syria, 401‑403 CE
Légende RIC X Arcadius 97Obverse: bust of the emperorAmerican Numismatic Society, inv. no. 1944.100.54806
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,6M
Titre Figure 10. Solidus for Galla Placidia, Ravenna, 422 CE
Légende Obverse: Augusta with a Chi Rho on the shoulder. Reverse: Victory with Chi Rho shieldVienna, Münzkabinett, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. no. RÖ 29665
Crédits Credit: Photoatelier, KHM, CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 AT
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 365k
Titre Figure 11. Mosaic panel with depiction of Emperor Justinian, members of the militia, clerics and imperial guard with Chi Rho shield
Légende Ravenna, San Vitale (inaugurated 547 CE)
Crédits Credit: U. Verstegen, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M
Titre Figure 12. Notitia Dignitatum. Insignia of the Magister officiorum per Orientem
Légende Written and illustrated in Basel, 1436. Copy of a Carolingian manuscript, which was then preserved in the cathedral library of Speyer (now destroyed), itself copied from a late Roman original.Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, MS. Canon. Misc. 378, fol. 101r
Crédits Credit: Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, CC BY-NC 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 212k
Titre Figure 13. Roman infantry helmet from Leiden (Netherlands), later 1st century CE
Légende Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. no. h 2018/7.1
Crédits Credit: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, CC0 1.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 702k
Titre Figure 14. Cheek piece of Roman cavalry helmet from the Waal near IJzendoorn (Netherlands), 1st century CE
Légende Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. no. e 1963/6.1
Crédits Credit: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, CC0 1.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 971k
Titre Figure 15. Roman cavalry helmet from Vechten (Netherlands), second half of the 2nd century CE
Légende Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. no. .f 2016/3.1
Crédits Credit: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, CC0 1.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 737k
Titre Figure 16. Helmet from Theilenhofen (Germany), second half of the 2nd to first half of the 3rd centuries CE
Légende Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum
Crédits Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Sailko, CC BY-SA 3.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 963k
Titre Figure 17. Helmet from Ostrov (Romania), second half of the 2nd century CE
Légende Constanța, History and Archaeology Museum
Crédits Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Cristian Chirita, CC BY-SA 3.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 872k
Titre Figure 18. Silver medallion of Constantine the Great wearing a helmet with a Chi Rho, minted in Ticinum (Pavia) between 315 and 319
Crédits Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Otto Nickl, CC BY-SA 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 258k
Titre Figure 19. Late Roman helmet from near Deurne (Netherlands), 319‑323 CE
Légende Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. no. .k 1911/4.1 5
Crédits Credit: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, CC0 1.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 823k
Titre Figure 20. Late Roman helmet from Budapest (Hungary)
Légende Budapest, Aquincumi Múzeum
Crédits Credit: P.F.J. Franzen, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 871k
Titre Figure 21. Ridge from a ridge helmet, with a Chi Rho at the front
Légende From the art market
Crédits Credit: S. Hoss, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 600k
Titre Figure 22. Ridge helmet of the Dunapentele/Intercisa type, with Chi Rho symbol, found in the Maas near Kessel (Netherlands)
Crédits Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Kleon3, CC BY-SA 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M
Titre Figure 23. Spangenhelm dated to 500‑533 CE, from a grave in Planig, near Bad Kreuznach (Germany)
Légende Mainz, Landesmuseum
Crédits Credit: Ursula Rudischer, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
URL http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/docannexe/image/4277/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 428k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Stefanie Hoss et Ute Verstegen, « Early Christian Themes and Symbols on Roman Militaria of the 4th to 6th/7th Centuries CE »Frontière·s [En ligne], Supplément 3 | 2025, mis en ligne le 17 juillet 2025, consulté le 05 juin 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/frontieres/4277 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/14dyk

Haut de page

Auteurs

Stefanie Hoss

Universität zu Köln

Ute Verstegen

Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search