The Battle Scene on Aemilius Paullus's Pydna Monument: A Reevaluation PDF

Preview

Summary

d i n i n g i n t h e s a n c t ua r y o f d e m e t e r a n d k o r e 1 Hesperia Th e J o u r nal of the Am er ic an Sc ho ol of Cl assi c al S t udie s at Athens Vo l u m e 8 5 2016 Copyright © The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, originally published in Hesperia 85 (2016), pp. 559–...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

The Battle Scene on Aemilius Paullus's Pydna Monument: A Reevaluation Michael J . Taylor Hesperia

Cite this paper

Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

T he At t alid Vict ory at Magnesia on a Lost Plaque from Pergamon Michael J . Taylor

Macedonian Armies aft er Alexander 323–168 BC Carmina Ciuche Visual Evidence for Roman Infant ry Tact ics Michael J . Taylor

d i n i n g i n t h e s a n c t ua r y o f d e m e t e r a n d k o r e

Hesperia Th e J o ur nal of the Amer ic an Sc ho ol of Cl assi c al S t udie s at Athens Vo l u m e 8 5 2016

Copyright © The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, originally published in Hesperia 85 (2016), pp. 559–576. This offprint is supplied for personal, non-commercial use only, and reflects the definitive electronic version of the article, found at .

1

hesperia Susan Lupack, Editor Editorial Advisory Board Carla M. Antonaccio, Duke University Angelos Chaniotis, Institute for Advanced Study Jack L. Davis, University of Cincinnati A. A. Donohue, Bryn Mawr College Jan Driessen, Université Catholique de Louvain Marian H. Feldman, University of California, Berkeley Gloria Ferrari Pinney, Harvard University Thomas W. Gallant, University of California, San Diego Sharon E. J. Gerstel, University of California, Los Angeles Guy M. Hedreen, Williams College Carol C. Mattusch, George Mason University Alexander Mazarakis Ainian, University of Thessaly at Volos Lisa C. Nevett, University of Michigan John H. Oakley, The College of William and Mary Josiah Ober, Stanford University John K. Papadopoulos, University of California, Los Angeles Jeremy B. Rutter, Dartmouth College Monika Trümper, Freie Universität Berlin Hesperia is published quarterly by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Founded in 1932 to publish the work of the American School, the journal now welcomes submissions from all scholars working in the fields of Greek archaeology, art, epigraphy, history, materials science, ethnography, and literature, from earliest prehistoric times onward. Hesperia is a refereed journal, indexed in Abstracts in Anthropology, L’Année philologique, Art Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Current Contents, IBZ: Internationale Bibliographie der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenliteratur, Numismatic Literature, Periodicals Contents Index, Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies, and TOCS-IN. The journal is also a member of CrossRef. Hesperia Supplements The Hesperia Supplement series (ISSN 1064-1173) presents book-length studies in the fields of Greek archaeology, art, language, and history. Founded in 1937, the series was originally designed to accommodate extended essays too long for inclusion in Hesperia. Since that date the Supplements have established a strong identity of their own, featuring single-author monographs, excavation reports, and edited collections on topics of interest to researchers in classics, archaeology, art history, and Hellenic studies. Back issues of Hesperia and Hesperia Supplements are electronically archived in JSTOR (www.jstor.org), where all but the most recent titles may be found. For order information and a complete list of titles, see the ASCSA website (www.ascsa.edu.gr). The

American School of Classical Studies at Athens, established in 1881, is a research and teaching institution dedicated to the advanced study of the archaeology, art, history, philosophy, language, and literature of Greece and the Greek world.

he s p er ia 85 (2016) Pa ges 5 5 9 – 5 7 6

The Battle Scene on Aemilius Paullus’s Pydna Monument A R ee val uat i on

ABS TRAC T This article provides a reassessment of the battle scene featured on the frieze of Aemilius Paullus’s Pydna Monument at Delphi. Each of the 29 figures is discussed in detail, with the archaeological and visual evidence for Roman and Macedonian military equipment cross-referenced with the literary evidence of the battle. Establishing the identity of the combatants is essential for deciphering the overall nature of the battle scene. Based on the proposed identifications, it is concluded that the scene represents the Romans everywhere triumphant, and that its intention may have been to evoke the pursuit and massacre of Perseus’s routed army.

TH E MON U MEN T AN D I TS CON TEXT On June 22nd, 168 b.c., after a series of maneuvers in the shadow of Mt. Olympos, Aemilius Paullus’s consular army engaged and defeated the Macedonian force personally commanded by King Perseus on the broad plain near the port of Pydna.1 Perseus fled, but surrendered shortly afterward.2 Because Paullus was waiting for commissioners from Rome to arrive before settling affairs, he set out on a grand tour of Greece, a combination of personal pilgrimage, imperial survey, and well-earned vacation.3 Upon reaching Delphi, he encountered a pillar in front of the Temple of Apollo 1. This article is dedicated to Erich Gruen in honor of his 80th birthday. I would like to thank him, as well as Andrew Stewart and Laura Pfuntner for reading early versions of this paper. Funding from the Brittan Travel Fund at the University of California, Berkeley, allowed me to examine the monument while I was a student at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Finally, thanks to my wife Kelsey and

our little Caroline for their love and support. On the battle of Pydna, see Pritchett 1969, pp. 145–176; McDonald 1981; Hammond 1984; Taylor 2014, p. 317. I am inclined to prefer Hammond’s identification of the battlefield on the plain below the village of Kitros, in large part because it would have provided adequate space for the sizable forces on both sides to deploy.

© The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

2. Palagia (2010) argues that the Winged Victory now displayed at the Louvre may have been commissioned to celebrate the capture of Perseus at Samothrace. Her argument is not entirely convincing, but if correct, it would make the Nike a companion piece of sorts to the Pydna monument. 3. On Paullus’s tour through Greece, see Russell 2012.

560

m i c h a e l j . tay l o r

that Perseus had been erecting in his own honor.4 The pillar is estimated to have been approximately 10 m tall.5 It was the latest in a series of royal pillars at Delphi, meant to join the monuments already dedicated to Eumenes II of Pergamon and Prusias II of Bithynia.6 Paullus ordered the pillar repurposed as a monument commemorating his recent victory at Pydna, and replaced Perseus’s dedication with a curt Latin inscription: L. AIMILIUS L. F. INPERATOR DE REGE PERSE MACEDONIBUSQUE CEPET. This represented a stark act of linguistic chauvinism amid the sea of Greek epigraphy.7 An equestrian statue of Paullus topped the pillar, and it was around the base of this statue that the frieze depicting the battle would have been located. While the battle was the culmination of several Roman interventions in the Greek east, the erection of the monument represented the first major Roman incursion into the Greek landscape, and its prominence at the heart of the Panhellenic sanctuary ensured a wide audience from across Greece and beyond.8 This article is primarily concerned with a problem central to understanding the content and intended message of the reliefs: the correct identification of the combatants. Much of what follows will be a detailed discussion of each of the 29 figures in the scene. My goal here is not to expound at length on the frieze’s multivalent roles as commemorative monument, private aristocratic advertisement, and Roman propaganda; I will instead discuss some of the immediate implications of my proposed identifications, namely the likely differentiation between Romans and Italian allies (socii) based on armor, the intentional diversity of Macedonian combatants (particularly cavalry), and finally the nature of the scene itself. I will argue against interpretations that the panels either represent four separate phases of the battle, or alternatively, the opening skirmish over the escaped horse (which the Romans lost badly). Rather, I conclude that the panels together form a single battle scene with the Romans everywhere triumphant. I suggest that while the depicted combat scene is essentially generic, the frieze may be intended to evoke the final phase of the battle, namely the pursuit and slaughter of the routed Macedonians.

INTER PRE T ING TH E SCENE I am not the first to posit a reconstruction of the figures. Adolphe Reinach provided one such attempt before his untimely death in the First World War. He suggested that the scene faithfully recapitulated aspects of the battle narratives in Livy and Plutarch.9 The most comprehensive work on the piece in the 20th century is the monograph by Kähler, who, I think, 4. Plut. Aem. 28.4. Polybios (30.10.2) was under the impression that Paullus appropriated multiple pillars and erected multiple statues (Livy 45.27.1 translates this error). Plutarch, a priest at Delphi, knew that there was only one pillar and one statue. 5. Courby (FdD II, pp. 304–305) estimated that the monument stood

9.58 m high, based on the surviving stones; Jacquemin and Laroche (1982, p. 14) posit a slightly taller height of 9.97 m. The plinth bearing the frieze measured 1.25 × 2.45 × 0.31 m. The frieze panels are now in the Archaeological Museum at Delphi. 6. Syll.3 628, 632; see also Gruen 1992, p. 142.

7. Inscription: ILS 8884 = ILLRP 323 = CIL I2 622. See Flaig 2000, p. 138, for the hegemonic implications of the Latin. 8. Alcock 1993, p. 196. Gruen (1992, p. 143) emphasizes the Hellenic context and audience. 9. Reinach 1910.

a e m i l i u s pau l l u s ’s p y d n a m o n u m e n t

561

erred significantly in his identification of the figures.10 Hammond and von Vacano have provided some corrective suggestions, while Boschung has more recently achieved a much-improved solution.11 However, neither of these authors discuss each of the figures in a methodical fashion, which is what I aim to do in this article, bringing to bear all the relevant evidence for the dress and equipment of both the Roman and the Macedonian soldiers. Many scholars have attempted to identify the soldier who represents Paullus himself. A few proposals can be dismissed out of hand: Webb posited that Paullus appears as a cavalryman in every single sequence, a far-fetched argument that must address the fact that this would put Paullus (repeatedly) in a mail cuirass, which goes against Plutarch’s description (Aem. 19.4), in which he notes that Paullus commanded his army without cuirass or helmet. As this was undoubtedly the official Aemilian story, it is unclear why his monument would deviate from it.12 Von Vacano argued that Paullus is infantryman (20) (see Fig. 8, below) in the numbering system employed by Kähler, which I follow for the sake of convenience. This imposing figure, however, also has a mail shirt and helmet, and Plutarch (Aem. 19.3) places Paullus on a horse during the battle.13 I strongly suspect that Paullus’s only appearance on the monument was as the equestrian statue on the very top, and that the reliefs portray only anonymous soldiers. The artist (or artists) certainly intended to use equipment as the primary means of differentiating between Roman and Macedonian soldiers. This worked in large part because the differences in armor, weaponry, and fighting styles were so great, making it possible for the viewer to instantly recognize a figure as Roman or Macedonian, although the addition of paint may have also color-coded the combatants’ appearance.14 Shields were particularly useful for differentiating the infantrymen: Roman footmen carried large, curved oval body shields (scuta), while Macedonian infantrymen carried round concave shields, often with elaborate designs and devices.15 Mail, a military technology that had not yet widely diffused across the eastern Mediterranean, also differentiated Roman infantry and cavalry from their Macedonian counterparts.16 10. See Kähler 1965, pp. 25–33, for his identifications. See also Pollitt 1986, pp. 155–158; Smith 1991, p. 185; Holliday 2002, pp. 91–96; Kousser 2010, pp. 528–530, for brief discussions of the monument in the broader context of Hellenistic art. 11. Hammond and Walbank 1988, pp. 615–621; von Vacano 1988; Boschung 2001. 12. Webb 1996, p. 36. 13. Von Vacano 1988, p. 379. 14. The polychromy on the other major battle relief from the Hellenistic world, the Alexander Sarcophagus, is remarkably well preserved, and shows how color could be used to enhance such a scene. For color illustrations

of the surviving pigment and a reconstruction of the monument’s original appearance, see Brinkmann 2008, pp. 31–36. 15. Compare, for example, the Roman shields on the so-called Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, on which see Stilp 2001. See also Kimmig 1940 for a wooden scutum found at Al-Fayum, although Kimmig initially identified it as Celtic. Sekunda (1996, pp. 4–6) and Goldman (2013, p. 135) affirm the Al-Fayum shield as a Roman model. For visual evidence of the Roman scutum, see Eichberg 1987; Feugère 2002, pp. 93–96; Bishop and Coulston 2006, pp. 61–63. Liampi (1998) provides an authoritative catalogue of examples and

images of the Macedonian shield; see also Anderson 1976; Markle 1999. Sekunda, in two articles, one dating to 1996 and the other to 2013, provides well-illustrated discussions of the Roman Republican and Antigonid armies, respectively. 16. Polyb. 6.23.16 reports that only Roman infantry in the first class armed themselves in mail. Antiochus IV, in his parade at Daphne in 166 b.c., distinguished his special “legion” of young men armed in the Roman fashion by arming them in mail cuirasses (Polyb. 30.25.2), a moment which also captures the spread of mail into the East, on which see Sekunda 2007, pp. 354–356; see also Robinson 1975, pp. 164–167.

562

m i c h a e l j . tay l o r

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

Given the frieze’s detailed depictions of military equipment, it is possible that Paullus or one of his subordinates provided the artists with pieces of Roman arms and armor, as well as captured Macedonian equipment—perhaps going so far as to have soldiers demonstrate the proper wear and use of the distinctive panoplies. While it is difficult to imagine Paullus micromanaging the production of the frieze (the settlement of Macedonia and the atrocity in Epirus were to keep him busy enough in the coming months), it is equally difficult to imagine that he would have been completely indifferent to the final appearance of the work.17 Many figures carried metal weapons affixed to holes drilled in their hands, the one surviving example being the sword-wielding hand of Roman legionary (27) (see Figs. 7, 8, below). It is not an unreasonable assumption that these inserts would have likewise reflected recognizable variations between Roman and Macedonian weaponry. One additional feature that characterizes Romans on the frieze is the fact that they wear their swords on the right side of their belts; this is indicated on the frieze by the drill holes that were used to affix metal scabbards to the marble. Writing in the decades after the monument was constructed, Polybios (6.23.6) noted this distinction, as Greeks and Macedonians generally wore their scabbards on the left. Such drill holes on the right side of the figures remain visible in the belts of (1), (2), (6), (20), (24), (27), and (28); the hole in the belt of (2) still has traces of the metal attachment. On panel I (Fig. 1), cavalrymen (1) and (2) are certainly Roman, wearing mail cuirasses (see Fig. 2, the so-called Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, for Republican infantry and cavalry). They attack Macedonian infantryman (3), identified by his distinctively decorated circular shield. He is closely paired with Macedonian cavalryman (4), who rides a stricken horse; there is a drill hole in its chest, likely for an arrow. The rider wears a cape and a skirt with flaps (pteruges), and his armor is likely intended to be a laminated linen cuirass.18 He can be compared with the Macedonian cavalryman on the late 4th-century b.c. Alexander Sarcophagus (Fig. 3).19 The color contrast between Romans in metallic armor and Macedonians in white linen armor may have been a chromatic signal that helped the viewer to clearly distinguish the two combatants. In the middle of the panel is (5), a riderless horse, evoking the escaped animal that supposedly sparked the skirmish between pickets that escalated into the full-fledged battle.20 The riderless horse visually anchors the reliefs to the historical moment at Pydna, and not to previous battles between Roman and Hellenistic forces (e.g., Cynoscephalae, Thermopylae,

8

9

10

Figure 1. Frieze of Aemilius Paullus’s Pydna Monument, panel I. Photo Marburg/Art Resource

17. There is no evidence for Paullus’s role in the creation of the frieze, although we do know that he maintained a number of Greek artists in his household retinue (Plin. NH 35.135; Plut. Aem. 6.8). 18. On laminated linen cuirasses in the ancient world (the “linothorax”), see Aldrete, Bartell, and Aldrete 2013. 19. Compare (4) also to the funerary stele of Nikanor son of Herakleides (Kilkis Archaeological Museum no. 2315), featured in Hatzopoulos and Juhel 2009, pp. 432–433. 20. For the escaped horse, see Plut. Aem. 18; Plutarch added that some of his sources claim that Aemilius himself ordered the horse released as a ruse. Livy (44.40) reports that the stray animal was a mule, and that its release was strictly accidental. Ruse or not, the horse/mule at Pydna quickly became an essential element of the story of how the battle started.

a e m i l i u s pau l l u s ’s p y d n a m o n u m e n t

563

Figure 2. Roman infantrymen and cavalryman from the so-called Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, ca. 115– 70 b.c. Photo Erich Lessing/Art Resource

Figure 3. Macedonian cavalryman from the Alexander Sarcophagus. Photo Erich Lessing/Art Resource

Magnesia, or even the Roman defeat at Callinicus early in the Third Macedonian War). Infantrymen (6) and (7) are easily identified as Roman, owing to the large oval scutum held by (6). Although (7) is badly damaged and only the outline and torso ridge of the breastplate remain, nonetheless it is clear that both figures wear muscle cuirasses. Traces of the top of (7)’s shield survive, indicating it is a large curved oval scutum similar to that of (6). The two Romans attack Macedonian infantryman (8), identified by his round ornate shield. He has already been wounded, as there is a drill hole in his right thigh, where a metal missile, likely an arrow, was inserted.

564

m i c h a e l j . tay l o r

Cavalryman (9) behind him is severely damaged, but he is almost certainly Macedonian. He carries a large round shield with a horizontal spine, for which there is comparative evidence from Macedonian funerary monuments.21 Cavalryman (10) is likewise poorly preserved, but can be identified as another Macedonian by the faintest traces of the pteruges below his waist, similar to those worn by Macedonian horsemen (4) and (14). On panel II (Fig. 4), Reinach and Kähler both identified (12), the fallen soldier in the middle of the scene, as Roman.22 The figure, however, is nude, with the navel and genitals prominently displayed. While it has been suggested that this represents a type of heroic nudity, other Romans and Macedonians on the monument are shown in detailed armor. It seems unlikely that heroic nudes would have been used in this context, especially given the early Roman ambivalence toward nudity.23 A more plausible explanation is that the figure is a naked Gaul, o...