1 Introduction
There is no doubt in scholarship that the Roman army, as a well-drilled professional organisation, mastered signalling communication.1 This included both communication in the field and communication at stationary units at the frontiers. The former is referred to as tactical level communication, the latter as strategic level. Tactical communication is understood as short range signalling, for combat or simply for âcontactâ situations with an enemy, whereas strategic communication implies an exchange of âhigh grade, complicated, and frequently enciphered messagesâ2 between commanders/units even over long distances.
Despite this general consensus, as we shall see researchers are divided on the quality, extent, and possible uses of signalling communication in the Roman army, due to the fact that specific written as well as archaeological sources are scare. While there is sufficient evidence in the sources for the use of sophisticated techniques on the battlefield, there is only sparse evidence to indicate the nature and extent of strategic communication at the frontiers. The use of sophisticated signalling methods in everyday military life is therefore discussed controversially. Webster summarizes the situation: âThis is such a basic need in any well-organized army that one must expect Roman staff officers to have given it their serious attention, yet there is very little mention of any systems in literature. On the other hand, the whole arrangement of the frontiers was based on information concerning enemy forces being passed to rearward areas to enable major troop concentrations at threatened points.
In the following paper, the known possibilities of Roman signal transmission will be addressed, as far as they can be reconstructed from the existing sources. Since we assume that the Roman army of the imperial period was uniformly equipped and trained throughout the empire, evidence from the entire imperial territory during the Principate period from the 1st to the 3rd century A.D. shall be used here. But with some restrictions, even examples from Late Antiquity still allow conclusions to be drawn about the Middle Imperial period.
2 Couriers/Dispatch Riders
Writing was an integral part of the imperial armyâs toolkit for accomplishing operational and logistical tasks.4 Written reports formed the foundation of the entire military organization for all administrative and personnel matters, such as payouts of soldiers, sick call, recording of weapons inventories, or deliveries of supplies. Legionaries had to be able to read, which was already a prerequisite at muster.5 Inscriptions of legio III Augusta from Lambaesis alone name 22 librarii âbook-keepersâ who were assisted by 21 exacti âarchivistsâ.6 Apart from the officers, whose writing skills we may take for granted, there were also special âwriting soldiersâ within the ranks of the so-called auxiliary troops. Important instructions or orders to the troops had been delivered by couriers since the end of the Republic.7 Thus strategic communication between high command as well as between singular units of the Roman army has been seen in the form of written communication. However, archaeological evidence of such communication is rare. But from Roman Egypt âThere is clear evidence in the
3 Acoustic Signals
Based on written sources, epigraphic evidence, and archaeological finds, we are well informed about the application of acoustic signals at a tactical level.12
Comparable to the scribal soldiers, a high level of training is also generally assumed for aenatores.18 We also know that acoustic signalling was essential in the military training of all soldiers. In Vegetius19 we find that âThe signals are observed in all exercises and marches, so that soldiers may obey more readily in actual battle, if ordered by the leaders to fight, stand their ground, pursue or retreat. For it is obviously a sound principle that they always ought to be doing in peacetime what it is deemed necessary to do in battle.â In the battle of Thapsus in 46 B.C., Caesar hesitates to give the signal to attack, but a tubicen sounds his instrument (âtubicen canere coepitâ), whereupon all the cohorts begin to advance, although their centurions try to stop them.20 Researchers are certainly right in concluding from this that the mere acoustic signal is sufficient to command troops,21 i.e. that the officers do not need to
Small bronze in the shape of a cornu blowing cock from Argentorate. After Forrer 1919: fig. 77
We are not fully informed about the number and type of aenatores in a unit. Apparently, 37 tubicines and 35 cornices served in legio III Augusta,30 although these do not necessarily have to have been in active service at the same time. It is undisputed that both infantry and cavalry units had brass players, as gravestones of aenatores from all troop categories demonstrate.31 It is also worth mentioning the frequent occurrence of parts of Roman brass instruments in archaeological contexts. In her latest compilation, Alexandrescu noted more
4 Visual Signals
Although there can be no doubt that the Roman army possessed special units for enemy reconnaissance as well as extensive technical and operational possibilities, remarkably there is almost no evidence of optical signal transmission.35 In contrast to Greek or Byzantine sources, the surviving written sources of the imperial period are almost completely silent about the use of such methods and techniques.36 One of the few occasions in which the use of visual signals has been handed down to us is the siege of Numantia by Scipio in 133 B.C.: According to the account, towers built into the cordon besieging Numanita used red flags in the daytime and torches by night to send signals.37 However, this system does not seem to have gone beyond simple alerting. The lightning of a beacon or the hoisting of a flag or a beam can only convey a single piece of information; they have âmore in common with an intruder alarm system than with a communications network.â38 Threatened units from Scipioâs army apparently only sent warning signals. This was probably sufficient, as the guard teams had been precisely briefed and the overall tactical situation remained manageable. The excavations in Numantia show that the furthest distance that had to be bridged in this way between a watchtower and one of the two main camps was a maximum of 1,300 m. This means that the signal distance is within the range of about 1,500 m over which optical signals could be effectively used, i.e. still visible to the naked eye. Interestingly, however, additional call relays are mentioned on the Roman side, which apparently
4.1 Along the Frontiers
A strategic situation comparable to these famous sieges, in which Roman soldiers had to guard a static, only weakly manned line, existed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D. on almost all the empireâs frontiers. However, ancient written sources that tell us about the use of beacons, fire signals, smoke signals (panels, flags, lights, etc.) have not come to us. Apart from historical reports on the use of optical signal transmission, there is a dearth of indicative military terminology. No terms for (optical) signallers have survived from Latin41 which suggests that there were no soldiers specialised in this field in the army of the middle imperial period; only the Greek term semeiophoroi (âsignal-bearersâ)42 is found in Late Antiquity. Should situations have required it signalling seems to have been part of the general tasks of the crew of a guard post or similar. It should also be mentioned that there is no reliable archaeological evidence for beacons, but this is perhaps explicable by the extremely ruinous state of preservation of possible watchtowers.
For a long time, the pictorial representations of watchtowers on Trajanâs Column were regarded as evidence of a âsystemâ for transmitting messages, but today this interpretation is accessed more critically.43 The beginning of the relief of the First Dacian War (A.D. 101) at the foot of the column shaft depicts three towers with pyramidical roofs next to each other, each surrounded by palisades (Figure 6.2). Between them stand auxiliary soldiers.44 Apparently these towers formed a chain of posts along the Danube: the initial frontier with the Dacians. The towers have a gallery running around the upper storey. A long flaming torch protrudes from a high window or door leading to this gallery. Since there are similarities with archaeological features identified along many sections of the imperial frontier, this scene is one of the most discussed
Trajanâs Column, Rome: Chain of posts along the Danube. After von Cohausen 1884: Taf. 3,5
In the following, case-studies will show which systems of message transmission were probable in the Roman period. It should be noted that examples can only be found along the frontiers; archaeological evidence for possible signalling stations within the Roman Empire are lacking.48
Isolated fortlets from the 4th century are known from the Yorkshire coast (England).49 These structures, consist of square stone towers with sides 13 m or 14 m long, surrounded by a defensive wall at least 12 m high.50 References in the literature to this combination of tower and small fort describe them alternatively as early warning systems against sea-borne enemies to lighthouses for all coastal shipping. It is clear that these stations have no âpartnerâ to communicate with because of the great distances between them and other military installations. Neither are neighbouring signalling stations known, nor were the military sites located far inland accessible without relay stations. According to current research, messengers were the only way to transmit messages to other Roman garrisons.51 The signal stations along the coast, which were located at a great distance from each other, are therefore interpreted as refuges where the population of the surrounding countryside within sight could gather in case of danger.52 Depending on the threat situation, people either sought the protection of the fortification or gathered forces to act against the threat. In such a scenario, the towers âfunctionedâ in isolation. Their signal transmission was limited to the surrounding intervisible area. Fire or smoke signals were probably
Dual systems, in which the interaction between a signal station and an associated second facility were important, and are well attested. An example from Upper Germany will serve here. On the Kapellenberg near Hofheim am Taunus, the remains of an isolated wooden tower with sides lengths of 3.5 m were found. It stood within a ring of fortifications, 35 m in diameter, consisting of a plank wall or a massive fence with two defensive ditches in front of it. The archaeological evidence allows us to reconstruct the height of the tower to 10 m (Figures 6.3 and 6.4). The site of the tower is in a direct line of sight
Ground plan of the watchtower on the Salisberg, Hofheim am Taunus. After Herrmann 1983
Site plan of the Roman military installations in Hofheim am Taunus. From ORL B 29 Hofheim 1897: Tafel 1 with modifications by the author
4.2 Direct or Lateral Signalling?
One of the key questions in assessing the signal transmission capabilities of the Roman army is the extent to which signals could be transmitted across several stations. Theoretically, it is possible to transmit messages at any distance; the only prerequisite is a chain of stations at suitable distances. Thus, at the artificial Roman land frontiers such as the Upper Germanic Limes, it is generally assumed that signals were passed along the existing chain of towers. The Limes towers are likely to have looked like those illustrated on Trajanâs Column, and, in contrast to those on river boundaries, their locations are known almost without gaps. In Upper Germany, towers are among the earliest elements of frontier defence. They were initially made of wood, often surrounded by palisades, and stood in a line along the frontier. Additional elements of the frontier, such as a palisade, rampart ditch or frontier wall were only added later. In the most recent expansion phases of the Upper German Limes, towers are spaced 400 to 600 m apart and are all positioned in such a way that at least their immediate neighbours are visible from each tower, and at the same time, complete surveillance of the entire course of the Limes was possible. A view into âenemy territoryâ, on the other hand, was not always possible. From this it was concludedâcertainly rightly soâthat the core task of the tower crews was to look along the frontier fortifications and to watch out for incursions. However, there is some debate about the kinds of reactions dangers might have elicited. Generally, scholarship assumes that tower crews passed on their observations to the nearest Limes forts by means of signals.54 It can also be assumed that their locations were chosen with strategic requirements in mind. The question of whether this was done by direct signalling or lateral signalling has been investigated in various studies.55 One result is that already during the alignment of the Upper Germanic Limes, the aim was to position all watchtowers and small fortlets with a direct line of sight to the nearest larger fort.56 Tower crews could therefore usually transmit their signals
Schematic representation of the signal system along the Limes in the northern Wetterau, Hesse. After Woolliscroft and Hofmann 1991: abb. 2
The observation that direct signalling was used as far as possible even on well-developed frontiers such as the Upper Germanic Limes confirms the prevailing opinion in modern literature that the Roman army generally did not use sophisticated signalling techniques. The reasons for this can only be speculated at; possibly the fact mattered that signalmen could always be sent quickly via the road network, which was also well developed.60 As a further case study, three sites are presented here whose function as relay stations is probable, or rather, their use in long-distance communication. These are the massive and therefore presumably unusually high stone towers on the Upper Germanic Limes section in the Wetterau (Germany) at Bad Nauheim, Obermörlen and Wölfersheim-Wohnbach. Two of the towers appear to have been identical in construction: they are square in plan, with 5.7 m (20 Roman feet) long walls up to 1.8 m thick; thereby significantly more massive than average Limes towers. One of these is the tower on the Johannisberg in Bad Nauheim, which was uncovered in 1909.61 A cistern in front of the tower could indicate that horses were stabled there.
The tower lies in the hinterland of the Limes, so it is generally believed that it functioned as a relay station between the fort at Friedberg, a good 3 km away, and the section of the frontier in the north-western Wetterau region. A second tower in Wölfersheim, 10 km further away, seems to have had the same function. It stood a little way off the Roman roads that lead through Wetterau and was protected by a pointed ditch or palisade. In the literature it is referred to
The signal tower on the Gaulskopf was rebuilt on its original foundations.
AUTHORSâ COLLECTION
4.3 Semaphore Signals?
At this point, therefore, we should briefly look at ancient written sources that describe methods of transmitting messages by optical means, creating a system of letter-telegraphy. Vegetius66 describes the possibility of signalling from towers by raising and lowering a beam of wood (appedunt trabes). On closer examination of his text, however, this possibility of transmitting messages seems to be limited to only two, at most three, positions of a signal lever, similar to a modern railway signal. This would only allow the transmission of simple messages, for example, âadvanceâ, âhaltâ and âretreat.â67 Much more sophisticated communication seems to be a system described by Polybius,68 which is based on the conversion of letters into pairs of numbers. In this way, signalling required only two optically distinguishable sources, which could then be counted and transcribed; a system that was possible using torches. An improved systemâapparently aware of Polybiusâ approachâusing three signal fires, is described by Sextus Julius Africanus69 shortly before the middle of the 3rd century.70 In the latter two examples, âa semaphore for spelling out messagesâ, i.e. a kind of letter-telegraphy, can rightly be recognised.71 The essential difference to the well-known semaphore systems of modern times, like Claude Chappeâs optical telegraph, is that in Antiquity there were no telescopes available that allowed the recognition of detail beyond 30 km. For large distances all that was possible was fire signalling, which according to Polybius72 could communicate to places âeven at a distance of three, four or more dayâs travelâ. If, however, âseveral light sources (torches) are used at the same time, then for the human eye several lights already blur into one at a thousand times their distance from each other.â73 Therefore, the greater the
While the aforementioned signal stations in the Wetterau could thusâat least theoreticallyâhave employed semaphore signalling at frontier, it is impossible to know whether this actually occurred in the Middle Imperial period. The practical use of optical signalling over long distances by means of a large number of relay stations is rejected by the majority of researchers of the period.74 In addition to the lack of strategic necessity in many places, and the high personnel expenditure due to a dense network of necessary signal stations, technical reasons are also cited. In particular, it is argued that there is not enough physical space in the comparatively small Limes towers for the operation of multiple beacons.75 âThe watchtowers and signal towers at the frontiers were ⦠not equipped for telegraphing, ⦠For this, instead of one tower at each station, three were needed at moderate intervals, or at least instead of the one torch at the tower of Trajanâs Column, there should have been three at greater intervalsâ.76
However, recent literature has argued that the facilities for optical telegraphing did exist in Late Antique small forts, usually called burgi, as represented on coinage. Archaeologically, chains of such burgi are known from the second half of the 4th century from the Upper Rhine but also from the Middle Danube.77 With an average width of 12 m, the dimensions of the towers are significantly larger than their earlier counterparts, and afforded substantially more interior space, so that it seems fair to assume a crew of up to 20 soldiers. The burgi probably belong primarily to a large-scale building programme of Emperor Valetinian I (A.D. 364â75). From his reign, but also that of other late Roman emperors (Diocletian, A.D. 284â305 to Valentinian III, A.D. 425â55),
So-called âCamp gate coinsâ from Constantine the Great, Licinius and Licinius II, minted between A.D. 317 and the early 320s, with reverse legends PROVIDENTIAE AUGGââForsight(!) of the Augustiâ. Staatliche Münzsammlung München (18â00257), Münzkabinett der Universität Göttingen (UK-02874 and AS-04175). CC BY 4.0. https://www.kenom.de
5 Conclusion
In summary, archaeological evidence suggests that the Roman military of the Imperial period initially used simple optical signals to transmit alarm messages in a direct line. On the other hand, there does not seem to have been a (uniform) system of transmitting messages over long distances.81 During the middle Imperial period, an intruder alarm system was sufficient for communication in the fortified frontiers of the empire. Beacons, which had the task of directly alerting the nearest military sites, stood along the frontier or in its immediate hinterland in the form of towers or fortlets. Their locations were adapted to changing circumstances; sometimes the system was improved over time by local measures. The distances between neighbouring signal stations along the frontiers were so small that the system probably functioned smoothly under almost all conditions, and complicated signalling was redundant. The density of the chain of posts also made it possible for acoustic signals to supplement or even completely replace the transmission of messages.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Appiani Historia Romana, Vol 1: Prooemium, Iberica, Annibaica, Libyca, Illyrica, Syriaca, Mithridatica fragmenta, eds. Paul Viereck, J.E. van Niejenhuis, Emilio Gabba. Leipzig: Bibliotheca Teubneriana 1905â1962. Ed. stereotypa correctior, Leipzig, 1962.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae editum VIII: Inscriptiones Africae Latinae. Collected by Gustav Wilmanns and edited by Theodor Mommsen. Berlin: Reimer/de Gruyter, 1881â1959.
Gaius Iulius Caesar. Bellum Africanum, ed. Robert Schneider. Berlin: Weidmann, 1962.
Gaius Iulius Caesar. Der Bürgerkrieg/De bello civili, ed. Otto Schönberger. Berlin: Tusculum, 2012.
Gaius Iulius Caesar: Commentarii de bello Gallico, ed. Heinrich Meusel. Berlin: Tusculum, 1960.
ORL. Der obergermanisch-raetische Limes des Roemerreiches, ed. E. Fabricius. Abt. A, Bd. 2, Strecke 4 u. 5. Heidelberg: Petters, 1936.
Polybius. Geschichte, trans. Hans Drexler, Bibliothek der alten Welt. Zürich: Artemis, 1961â63.
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Epitoma rei militaris, ed. Michael D. Reeve. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004.
Syrianus Magister: De Re Strategica, trans. George T. Dennis, Three Byzantine military treaties. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 25. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1985.
Secondary Sources
Alexandrescu, Cristina-Georgeta. Blasmusiker und Standartenträger im Römischen Heer. Untersuchungen zur Benennung, Funktion und Ikonographie. Cluj-Napoca: Phoibos, 2010.
Baatz, Dietwulf. Die Wachttürme am Limes. Kleine Schriften zur Kenntnis der römischen Besetzungsgeschichte Südwestdeutschlands 15. Stuttgart: Kärcher, 1976.
Baatz, Dietwulf. Review of âDavid J. Woolliscroft, Roman Military Signalling,â Germania 81 (2003): 648â52.
Becker, Thomas, and Jürgen Obmann. âNeubauten am Limes.âBericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 56 (2015): 409â43.
Behn, Friedrich. âDie Musik im römischen Heere.â Mainzer Zeitschrift 7 (1912): 36â47.
Bender, Stephan. âRom kontrolliert den Raum. Die Turmruine auf dem Johannisberg und das Projekt Weltkulturerbe Limes.â In Sole und Salz schreiben Geschichte, ed. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen, 294â98. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2003.
Dahm, Murray. âCampgate Coins and Roman Fire Signalling.â Classicum 30 (2004): 17â25.
Davies, Roy William. âThe daily life of the Roman Soldier under the Principate.â In Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (ANRW) II, 1, ed. Hildegard Temporini, 299â338. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974.
Donaldson, J.H. âSignalling, Communications and the Roman Imperial Army.â Britannia 19 (1988): 349â56.
Drack, Walter. Die spätrömische Grenzwehr am Hochrhein. Archäologische Führer der Schweiz, 13. Basel: Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur â und Frühgeschichte, 1980.
Elkins, Nathan T. âA note on late Roman art: the provincial origins of camp gate and baldachin iconography on the late imperial coinage.â American Journal Numismatics 25 (2013): 283â302.
Forrer, Robert. Cahiers dâArchéologie et dâhistoire dâAlsace 37, 1919.
Herrmann, Fritz-Rudolf. Der Kapellenberg bei Hofheim am Taunus, Main-Taunus-Kreis. Führungsblatt zu den vorgeschichtlichen Grabhügeln, dem römischen Wachtturm und dem frühmittelalterlichen Ringwall. Archäologische Denkmäler in Hessen 30. Wiesbaden: Abteilung für Vorâ und Frühgeschichte im Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, 1983.
Kofler, Friedrich. âStrassenturm im Wöfersheimer Walde.â Limesblatt. Mitteilungen der Streckenkommissare bei der Reichslimeskommission 27 (1898): sp. 767â69.
Kolb, Anne. Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich. Klio Beihefte 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000.
Kolling, Alfons âEin römisches Wandbild mit musizierendem Hahn.â Germania 53 (1975): 174â76.
Kromayer Johannes, and Georg Veit. Heerwesen und Kriegführung. Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften IV, 3, 2. München: C.H. Beck-Verlag, 1928.
Leiner, Wolfgang. Die Signaltechnik der Antike. Stuttgart: Leiner, 1982.
Maxfield, Valerie A. âOstraca and the Roman army in the Eastern Desert.â Bull. Inst. Class. Studies (2011): 153â73.
Oenbrink, Werner. Musizierende Tiere. Kölner Jahrbuch 28 (1995): 635â41.
Riepl, Wolfgang. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Nachrichtenwesens bei den Römern. Inaugural-Dissertation Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen. Leipzig: Teubner, 1911.
Sextus Iulius Africanus. Cesti: The Extant Fragments, trans. William Adler, eds. Martin Wallraff, Carlo Scardino, Laura Mecella, and Christophe Jan-Daniel Guignard. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012.
Soproni, Sándor. Der spätrömische Limes zwischen Esztergom und Szentendere. Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó, 1978.
Southern, Pat. âSignals versus illumination on Roman frontiers.â Britannia 21 (1990): 233â42.
Stefan, Alexandre Simon. Die Trajanssäule. Darmstadt: wbg Philipp von Zabern, 2020.
von Cohausen, August. Der römische Grenzwall in Deutschland: militärische und technische Beschreibung desselben. Wiesbaden: C.W. Kreidelâs Verlag, 1884.
von Domaszewski, Alfred. Die Fahnen im römischen Heere. Abhandlungen des archäologisch-epigraphischen Seminars der Universität Wien 5. Wien: Carl Gerolâs Sohn, 1885.
Watson, George Ronald. âDocumentation in the Roman Army.â In Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (ANRW) II, 1, ed. Hildegard Temporini, 493â507. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974.
Webster, Graham. The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. 3rd ed. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.
White, Andrew. âWatching, Guarding or Signalling? Late Roman Coastal Fortlets in Britain.â In Beacons and Military Communications from Antiquity to the Early Modern Period, eds. Marie Ãdegaard, Stuart Brookes and Thorsten Lemm, 127â44. Leiden: Brill, 2026.
Wilson, P.R. âAspects of the Yorkshire signal stations.â In Roman Frontier Studies 1989, Proc. Internat. Congress Roman Frontier Studies 1989. eds. Valerie A. Maxfield, and Michael J. Dobson, 142â47. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1991.
Woods, David. âThe late Roman âCamp gateâ Reverse Type and the Sidus Salutare.â The Numismatic Chronicle 177 (2017): 159â74.
Woolliscroft, David John. Roman Military Signalling. Stroud and Charleston: Tempus, 2001.
Woolliscroft David John, and Birgitta Hofmann. âZum Signalsystem und Aufbau des Wetterau-Limes.â Fundberichte Baden-Württemberg 16 (1991): 531â43.
See also Williams this volume, and White this volume.
J.H. Donaldson, âSignalling Communications and the Roman Imperial Army,â Britannia 19 (1988), p. 349.
Graham Webster, The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D, 3rd ed. (Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998), p. 254.
Roy William Davies, âThe daily life of the Roman Soldier under the Principate,â in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (ANRW) II, 1, ed. Hildegard Temporini (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), pp. 299â338; George Ronald Watson, âDocumentation in the Roman Army,â in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (ANRW) II, 1, ed. Hildegard Temporini (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), pp. 493â507.
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Epitoma rei militaris, ed. Michael D. Reeve (Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004), 2,19.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae editum VIII: Inscriptiones Africae Latinae, collected Gustav Wilmanns and ed. Theodor Mommsen (Berlin: Reimer/de Gruyter 1881â1959), pp. 2560 and 2629.
Johannes Kromayer and Georg Veit, âHeerwesen und Kriegführung,â in Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften IV, 3, 2, ed. I. Müller (Munich: C.H. Beck-Verlag, 1928), p. 439.
Valerie Maxfield, âOstraca and the Roman army in the Eastern Desert,â Bull. Inst. Class. Studies (2011), p. 166.
Wolfgang Riepl, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Nachrichtenwesens bei den Römern. Inaugural-Dissertation Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1911), p. 82; Anne Kolb, âTransport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich,â (Klio Beihefte) 2. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), p. 60.
Kolb, âTransport und Nachrichtentransfer,â p. 109.
Maxfield, âOstraca and the Roman army,â p. 165.
See also Bertaud this volume.
Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. Karl Müller (Paris: Editore Ambrosio Firmin Didot, 1841â1872), 262a.
Friedrich Behn, âDie Musik im römischen Heere,â Mainzer Zeitschrift 7 (1912), pp. 36â47.
Alfred von Domaszewski, Die Fahnen im römischen Heere, (Abhandlungen des archäologisch-epigraphischen Seminars der Universität Wien) 5, eds. Otto Benndorf, and Otto Hirschfeld (Wien: Carl Gerolâs Sohn, 1885), p. 6; Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 26.
Cristina-Georgeta Alexandrescu, Blasmusiker und Standartenträger im Römischen Heer. Untersuchungen zur Benennung, Funktion und Ikonographie (Cluj-Napoca: Phoibos, 2010), p. 36.
Behn, âMusik,â p. 44.
Alexandrescu, Blasmusiker und Standartenträger, p. 68.
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Epitoma rei militaris, 2, 22.
Gaius Iulius Caesar, Bellum Africanum, ed. Robert Schneider (Berlin: Weidmann 1962), 82,3.
von Domaszewski, âFahnen,â p. 8.
Gaius Iulius Caesar, Der Bürgerkrieg/De bello civili, ed. Otto Schönberger (Berlin: Tusculum 2012), 7, 47,1.
Gaius Iulius Caesar. Bellum Africanum, 80.
Alexandre Simon Stefan, Die Trajanssäule (Darmstadt: wbg Philipp von Zabern, 2020), scene 5, image field 16 and scene 26, image field 66; for a discussion of the Trajan column, see also Williams this volume.
Stefan, Trajanssäule, scene 40, image fields 103/104.
Stefan, Trajanssäule, p. 72.
von Domaszewski, âFahnen,â p. 9; Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 28.
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Epitoma rei militaris, 2, 22.
Alfons Kolling, âEin römisches Wandbild mit musizierendem Hahn,â Germania 53 (1975), pp. 174â76. Werner Oenbrink, âMusizierende Tiere,â Kölner Jahrbuch 28 (1995), pp. 635â41.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VIII: Inscriptiones Africae Latinae, p. 2557.
Alexandrescu, Blasmusiker und Standartenträger, p. 68.
Alexandrescu, Blasmusiker und Standartenträger; no. MI 25 and MI 26.
ORL, Der obergermanisch-raetische Limes des Roemerreiches, ed. E. Fabricius (Abt. A, Bd. 2, Strecke 4 u. 5) (Heidelberg: Petters, 1936), 200 with fig. 19.
Alexandrescu, Blasmusiker und Standartenträger; no. MS 22.
Wolfgang Leiner, Die Signaltechnik der Antike (Stuttgart: Leiner, 1982), p. 114; Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 74.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 43.
Appiani Historia Romana, Vol 1, Prooemium, Iberica, Annibaica, Libyca, Illyrica, Syriaca, Mithridatica fragmenta, eds. Paul Viereck, J.E. van Niejenhuis, Emilio Gabba (Leipzig: Bibliotheca Teubneriana 1905â1962. Ed. stereotypa correctior, Leipzig 1962), 6.90.
Donaldson, âSignalling Communications,â p. 350.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 80; Leiner, Signaltechnik, p. 119.
Gaius Iulius Caesar: Commentarii de bello Gallico, ed. Heinrich Meusel (Berlin: Tusculum 1960), 3,65,3.
Donaldson, âSignalling Communications,â p. 351.
Syrianus Magister: De Re Strategica, trans. George T. Dennis, Three Byzantine military treaties (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae) 25 (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1985), p. 17.
Dietwulf Baatz, Die Wachttürme am Limes (Kleine Schriften zur Kenntnis der römischen Besetzungsgeschichte Südwestdeutschlands) 15 (Stuttgart: Kärcher, 1976).
Stefan, Trajanssäule, p. 118â89, scene I.
Thomas Becker and Jürgen Obmann, âNeubauten am Limes,â Bericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 56 (2015), pp. 409â43.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 90.
Webster, Roman Imperial Army; Pat Southern, âSignals versus illumination on Roman frontiers,â Britannia 21 (1990), p. 238.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 85.
See also White this volume.
White, âWatching, Guarding or Signalling? Late Roman Coastal Fortlets in Britain,â this volume.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 85.
Southern, âSignals versus illumination,â p. 235; P.R. Wilson, âAspects of the Yorkshire signal stations,â in Roman Frontier Studies 1989, eds. Valerie A. Maxfield and Michael J. Dobson, Proc. (Internat. Congress Roman Frontier Studies 1989) (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1991), pp. 142â7; White, this volume.
Syrianus Magister, De Re Strategica 8,1, âSignal fires and their management.â For the Greek term âfanosâ, see Latin: âfanariumâ, Italian âfanaleâ, Arab âfanârâ or German âFanalâ.
Baatz, Wachttürme.
David John Woolliscroft, Roman Military Signalling (Stroud and Charleston: Tempus, 2001).
David John Woolliscroft, and Brigitta Hofmann, âZum Signalsystem und Aufbau des Wetterau-Limes.â Fundberichte Baden-Württemberg 16 (1991), pp. 531â43.
Donaldson, âSignalling Communicationsâ; Woolliscroft, Roman Military Signalling, p. 15.
Woolliscroft, Roman Military Signalling, p. 64; Southern, âSignals versus illumination,â p. 237.
Donaldson, âSignalling Communications,â p. 356.
Leiner, Signaltechnik, p. 113.
Stephan Bender, âRom kontrolliert den Raum. Die Turmruine auf dem Johannisberg und das Projekt Weltkulturerbe Limes,â in Sole und Salz schreiben Geschichte, ed. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2003), pp. 294â98; Fritz-Rudolf Herrmann, âDer Kapellenberg bei Hofheim am Taunus, Main-Taunus-Kreis,â (Führungsblatt zu den vorgeschichtlichen Grabhügeln, dem römischen Wachtturm und dem frühmittelalterlichen Ringwall) 30 (Wiesbaden: Archäologische Denkmäler in Hessen, 1983).
Friedrich Kofler, âStrassenturm im Wöfersheimer Walde,â Limesblatt. Mitteilungen der Streckenkommissare bei der Reichslimeskommission 27 (1898), sp. 767â69.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VIII: Inscriptiones Africae Latinae, pp. 2494â95, and possibly even p. 2496.
ORL 1936, 67.
Leiner, Signaltechnik, p. 109.
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Epitoma rei militaris, 3,5.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 88.
Polybius. Geschichte, 45â7; see also Bakke this volume for a discussion of semaphore signalling.
Sextus Iulius Africanus. Cesti: The Extant Fragments, trans. William Adler, eds. Martin Wallraff, Carlo Scardino, Laura Mecella and Christophe Jan-Daniel Guignard (Berlin: de Gruyter 2012), 2, 77.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 106; Woolliscroft, Roman Military Signalling, p. 168.
Webster, Roman Imperial Army, p. 255.
Polybios, Geschichte, transl. Hans Drexler (Bibliothek der alten Welt. Zürich: Artemis 1961â63), 4, 3.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â pp. 47 and 106.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 106.
Leiner, Signaltechnik, p. 124.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 110.
Walter Drack, âDie spätrömische Grenzwehr am Hochrhein,â (Zürich: Archäologische Führer der Schweiz 13, 1980), Sándor Soproni, Der spätrömische Limes zwischen Esztergom und Szentendere (Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó, 1978), p. 200.
Nathan T. Elkins, âA note on late Roman art: the provincial origins of camp gate and baldachin iconography on the late imperial coinage.â American Journal Numismatics 25 (2013), pp. 283â302; David Woods, âThe late Roman âCamp gateâ Reverse Type and the Sidus Salutare,â The Numismatic Chronicle 177 (2017), pp. 159â74.
Murray Dahm, âCampgate Coins and Roman Fire Signalling,â Classicum 30 (2004), pp. 17â25.
Different: Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichteâ p. 122; but Leiner, Signaltechnik, p. 133.
Leiner, Signaltechnik, p. 48.
Riepl, âBeiträge zur Geschichte,â p. 63.