Corcumello weapons relief.
The relief in its finding place.
A new Roman weapons relief has just been found in Italy. These are not extremely rare, but new ones don't come up every decade. It was found in Corcumello, a town 100 km east of Rome. The relief was most probably originally part of a great Roman funerary monument along a road in Alba Fucens region in the early Imperial period. The limestone relief is 2,2 m long. It had been reused (a common practise throughout history) as a part of a church of Sant'Anatolia already in Antiquity, but the church was later ruined and the relief ended up underground. The relief is now under conservation in nearby Sant'Antonio church.
Here is the Italian article that doesn't say anything of importance that I hadn't already translated.
The relief is highly intriguing due to it having a wide array of weapons depicted, and its great state of preservation. I will analyse the iconography here.
The relief features a pile of weapons and armour. These are not Roman weapons, but spoils of war taken from the enemy. It was pretty common to depict enemy armament on Roman victory monuments. The style of equipment is "barbaric" (non-Roman), most probably Celtic. The carnyx (blowing-horn) is the most instantly recognisable Celtic object.
Since the relief was part of a funerary monument, it might depict spoils of war from a campaign against Celtic peoples by a Roman general or other leader, in whose honour the monument was erected. This would place it in the time period of early Principate (from 27 BCE to 1st century CE), time of emperor Augustus perhaps. While Caesar had conquered Gallia by 51 BCE that did not mean end to all conflicts between Rome and Celtic tribes. Augustus celebrated his victory over the 45 tribes on the Alps in his Tropaeum Alpium -memorial in 6 BCE.
Next I will analyse each object shown in the relief, numbered for easier viewing.
1. Clothes or armour. If it is armour, it might be soft one, made of padded fabric for instance. It can also depict subarmalis, an underarmour padding jacket on which usually a mail shirt is dressed. This garment has short sleeves and a thigh or knee length hem, and shoulder doubling (humeralia). It is also possible that there is two garments on top of each other, a tunic, and a vest-like padding garment or soft armour. There is a belt with circular or D-shaped buckle. The hem below the belt might be creased, or then it is a depiction of pteryges, those fabric (not leather) hanging flaps often attached to the hem of subarmales (not to the metallic armours themselves). That would be Roman fashion, but fashions traveled back and forth. In my opinion the hem looks just like creased fabric, and not like pteryges.
2. Carnyx, a Celtic war-horn that was carried in upright position, made of bronze. They could be quite long and had deep and strong sound. The head of carnices were usually shaped like boar heads. Boars were highly respected animals in Gallia, and had totemic value to Gallic warriors.
3. Hexagonal shield, or oval shield with flat top and bottom. The shield of Celtic shape (thureos) is fitted with a central boss (umbo), probably of metal, as well as a spina, a wooden "spine" of the shield, a reminder of earlier fashion when the 'barleycorn shaped' boss was also made of wood and its two ends were extended to the whole length of the shield. Here only the spina remains, and the 'barleycorn boss' has been switched for a round metallic one. The boss could be made of bronze, but more likely of iron. The shield is decorated with a wide circle design in its centre.
4. Gauntlet. Gauntlets are very rarely depicted on weapons reliefs, I know of only a few other examples. It seems that they were used on the right hand to protect it from weapons in a fight. In warfare these must have been extremely rare objects, since they were not mentioned by ancient historians, none has been found, and only a fistful of depictions exist. Due to the look of them in the sculptures, as well as the fact that none survive archaeologically, the gauntlets most probably were made of organic materials. This gauntlet is of mitten type, without differentiated fingers, and looks like it could be made of padded fabric. Padded fabric arm defences (manicae) were used by Roman gladiators at least from the late Republican times onwards. Sometimes these covered the hand also. Outside gladiatorial context, depictions of hand and arm protection is extremely rare. There are only depictions of right hand gauntlets, since the shield always protected the left hand.
5. Helmet of Agen-Port type. Celtic style, combination of earlier Celtic Agen and Port type helmets. These helmets were precursors and design inspiration for Roman helmets of the type family known as Imperial Gallic in Great Britain, and Weisenau-Nijmegen in continental Europe. The helmet has cheekpieces, and a neck-guard. The most interesting detail are the horns depicted on it. They clearly look like actual ram's horns, and quite big indeed. There are several other reliefs depicting Gallic helmets with curved horns, so this is not a unique feature, but rare one nonetheless.
6. Roman pugio, or dagger. Might be looted Roman weapon, or made by a Celtic smith in similar style. The pugio has a traditional leaf-shaped blade very wide at the hilt, short grip, and trefoil pommel. This pommel style was popular during Caesar's time, and continued in some daggers and swords to the first century CE.
7. Oval shield. This Celtic style shield has the same boss and spina as the first shield, and so do all the other shields in this relief. The shield emblem features three wide interlinking circles along the spina.
8. Greave (ocrea) for the right leg. Greaves were meant for protecting the shins and knees, and were used by Greeks and Romans alike. For Celts they are unusual and foreign form of protection. All greaves in this time period were made of bronze, later Roman ones also of iron. Bronze greaves have been found in Celtic chieftains burial in Ciumeşti, Romania, and they were of Hellenistic manufacture. Apparently Celts did not produce greaves of their own. Greaves were shaped to form for individual's shins, such as the one in this relief, which also has a rounded portion on top protecting the knee. Polybius describes Roman soldiers wearing one greave in the 2nd century BCE. Arrianos in the 2nd century CE tells that legionaries wore greaves only on parades, but that earlier soldiers wore a greave on the leading (left) leg only. Vegetius in the 4th century CE mistakenly attributes the use of one greave to the right leg when talking about a much earlier time. This greave is for the right leg, maybe the other is hidden inside the weapons pile.
9. Pilum, a heavy Roman javelin. Pilum had a wooden shaft, on top of which was attached a thin iron shank topped with a small javelinhead. The head was later pyramidal in shape, but this is an earlier model with triangular barbed head, like a large arrowtip. The iron shanks of pila were thin enough to pass through the hole made by the javelinhead through a shield and armour of a warrior. The shaft of pilum was not made to break on impact, unlike a popular misconception states. Celtic peoples used mostly their own javelin types, but some pila have also been found in Celtic contexts, such as in Monterenzio, Bologna, Italy, and in Förker Laas Riegel, Carinthia, Austria. The size of the javelinhead in the relief is probably exaggerated to some degree.
10. Helmet of Agen-Port type. Another Celtic helmet, with spiral decorations forged on the skull of the helmet. On the sides there seems to be wings for decoration. Celtic winged helmets (à la Asterix) did in fact exist, but were rare, especially in this time period. The wings are quite small, and look like they could be real bird wings, although metallic decoration cannot be entirely ruled out. Metallic bird wing decorations survive on some earlier Italic helmets.
11. Spear or javelinhead. Behind a shield peeks a head of a spear or javelin. Triangular in shape it looks like exaggerated or symbolic depiction of a spear. No spearheads of exactly this shape have been found.
12. Oval shield. Celtic shield similar to the rest of them. Shield emblem includes a wide circle in the centre, and two crescent Moons (lunulae) on the each tip of the shield, along with the spina.
13. Hexagonal shield. This Celtic shield is mostly covered by the previous one, but crescent Moon decorations can be seen on both of its ends.
14. Sword or scabbard tip. Under the previous shield peeks a tip of a sword or scabbard. It features a central ridge, found in some swords, especially in Greece, and in Roman pugiones. But this could also be a scabbard for a sword, so the central ridge would be decoration on the scabbard.
15. Celtic sword (kladios). This is a long two edged one handed sword with sides that do not taper much until the tip of the blade. This typical Celtic weapon has a short grip and its hilt parts might be made of either metal or organic materials. The shape of the pommel is hard to determine due to the preservation of the relief and the quality of the photograph, but it could be a trefoil shape. The tip of the sword looks quite rounded, which could either be intentional or then the tip has been broken during millenniae. Some Celtic swords had quite rounded points, some very acute ones. Both tip types could be used for thrusting, although the acute ones are better suited for it. Celtic swords were general cut-and-thrust weapons always used in conjunction with a large shield.
16. Hexagonal shield, seen from the inside. Inside view of this shield makes it even more interesting. The handle of the shield is horizontal, like in all shields of this type. Handle bar, made usually of wood, possibly of metal, or a combination of both, runs across the width of the shield, the actual handle part being slightly bulbuous in shape. The shape of the fisthole is round, like the shield bosses. This shield, like the rest of them, have a clearly defined edging around in. Shield edgings were made of bronze, iron, or animal hide. They were quite thin and narrow to reduce weight. The insides of shields were most of the times also decorated, as in this case. This shield has five concentric circles drawn on its inside.
17. Hexagonal shield. This has the exact same emblem as the shield in no. 12, and possible 13 also.
18. Shield, of unknown shape. A part of a circle decoration (around the boss) survives.
Relation to other sculpture
The newly found relief was originally a part of a larger monument, and in this chapter I will try to connect the relief to earlier finds. Similar pieces of Roman sculpture have been excavated in the same Alba Fucens region already decades ago. These were published by Frank Van Wonterghem in his article Un fregio d'armi 'Ellenistico' ad Alba Fucens ("Hellenistic weapons relief from Alba Fucens") in Ancient Society Vol. 22 (1991). He tells that the earliest report about excavations in Alba Fucens in year 1951 presented the first found relief block, called fragment 1. It was found in in the vicinity of Piccolomini Castle, in the town of Celano, in L'Aquila Province, 120 km east of Rome.
The second and third relief (fragments 2 and 3) were found in Villa Tollis in Massa d'Albe, a town also in L'Aquila province. The fourth relief piece (fragment 4) was found in the same Alba Fucens region, but the paper doesn't specify where exactly. This fragment is in the Archaeological Museum of Avezzano. The fifth relief block (fragment 5) was found in the cemetery of Corcumello.
All these find places are roughly in a ten kilometer radius from each other. While the distance might sound like they could not become from the same monument, this is not necessarily the case. Ready cut stone masonry, whether it contained reliefs or not, were often reused already during Antiquity and also in later period as building material for newer buildings. Several of these reliefs were found as parts of different structures, where they had been reused, possibly bringing the stones several kilometers away from their original location.
The museum in Avezzano tells about the fragment 4: "Limestone block with a frieze of arms originally inserted in the masonry of a public building of the last decades of the 1st century BCE, perhaps a portico around the campus (the parade ground) by Alba Fucens".
Van Wonterghem is certain that the relief fragments 1–5 come from the same Roman monumental structure in Alba Fucens, and I have no reasons to disagree. Based on the iconography, the material (limestone), the size and dimensions of the newly found relief block, as well as its find place makes it clear to me that it also belonged to the same monument. That would date it to the last decades of the 1st century BCE, perhaps in the time of emperor Augustus. Now let's look at the iconography of the earlier found pieces. All photos and line drawings are from Van Wonterghem's paper, except the photograph of fragment 4 that is from the Archaeological Museum of Avezzano.
Fragment 1
1. Oval shield. With 'barleycorn' shaped boss (umbo) and spina. The shield is decorated with the emblem of outstretched (eagle's) wings, a typical motif in Roman shields. The eagle was the bird of Juppiter, the Roman supreme god, and its wings were often depicted on Roman shields in the Imperial period, but they come into use in the Late Republic.
This looks very much like a Roman legionary shield (scutum) of the Republican period, except it looks flat. Roman scuta were always curved around their vertical axis, to form almost a semi-cylinder. In the artwork however the curvature has not always been depicted very clearly, such as in the case of the so called altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus (122–115 BCE), that features Late Republican legionaries with their shields. Those shields looks almost flat when depicted from the front, but they are clearly curved when seen from the side. We cannot answer the question whether the shield depicted in this relief fragment was meant to represent flat or curved shield, but in my mind either case is possible, however I would rather favour the flat argument.
2. Greave, with a rounded knee-cap. Made either of bronze or less likely iron. The shape is similar than in the newly found relief.
3. Greave, the same as number 2.
4. Blade of some kind, perhaps a spear or javelin head.
5. Blade of some kind, perhaps a spear or javelin head.
Fragment 2
2. Tip of a sword blade, with a midrib.
3. Probably a shield, big and round in shape, without a boss. This could be a depiction of a Hellenistic 'Argive shield', that did not have a shield boss, but instead two grips (porpax & antilabe) on the inside for fastening the shield to the forearm. This shield type was in use centuries before by Greek hoplites, but was still used at least ceremonially at the end of the Roman Republic, and continued to be depicted in Hellenising art during the Roman Empire. At least in the Imperial period it is highly unlikely that this shield type would have been in actual use outside archaisising artistic context in propaganda monuments or in historical depictions.
4. Helmet, of Hellenistic 'Attic' or 'Thracian' type. These names have nothing to do with the helmet's actual origins, they are just names given to them by archaeologists. These helmets are also called peaked helmets, since they feature a peak at the front, for protecting the face from downward strikes. This helmet has cheekpieces, a peak at the front, volute decorations at the sides, a neckguard at the back, and a crest possibly of feathers on top of the skull, with a falling plume on the back.
5. Tip of a pilum-like javelin with a long iron shaft on top of which is a small javelinhead of leaf or pyramidal shape.
6. Sword blade, possibly with a midrib.
7. Helmet, of Hellenistic 'Thracian' type. A peaked helmet with cheekpieces, a neckguard, volute decoration, and a short metallic crest box going longitudinally over the skull.
8. Greave, with prominent round decoration on the knee, and stylised muscle lines on the calf.
9. Shield, oval or hexagonal in shape. It is not clear if the shield is depicted from the front or back. From the photograph it seems that the round portion in the middle of the shield is in the shadow, so it is possibly a fisthole of the shield, rather than a boss. Then again, there are no signs of a shield handle going over the possible hole. Maybe it is worn away during millenniae? The shield shows unique decoration, two crossbands going over it in diagonal lines. This can very well be the inside of the shield, since these were most of the times also painted and/or decorated. However, without a better photograph I cannot rule out the option that this is the outside of the shield.
10. Tip of a sword blade.
11. End of a hexagonal shield with a tip of its spina showing.
Fragment 3
2. Hexagonal shield with a 'barleycorn' boss and spina.
3. Hellenistic helmet, of 'Attic' type. The helmet has cheekpieces, a neckguard, possibly volute decorations on the sides and a longitudinal crest on top of the skull, with a short tail hanging at the back.
4.Possibly a tip of a sword blade.
5. Hexagonal shield with a 'barleycorn' boss and spina.
6. Hexagonal shield. This shield has either a round boss, or then it is depicted from the inside with a round fisthole. If the shield shows its inside, the boss can be either round or 'barleycorn' shaped, since the hole doesn't tell us the shape of the boss. The bands at both sides of the circle could be the shield handle, or decoration on the shield. Clear answer cannot be given based on the drawing alone, since the photograph doesn't show more detail.
7. Greave, similar than number 8 in fragment 2.
8. Unidentified object, perhaps part of a blade of some weapon.
Fragment 4
1. Helmet with a Roman style crest (crista) probably made of long falling feathers. Roman iconography from this period shows all helmet crests seemingly made of feathers, and not of horsehair as previously thought. The crest runs most longitudinally on top of the helmet from front to back of the head. The curved portion that seems to be connected to the helmet's lower part could be a depiction of its neckguard. The shape of the helmet with the neckguard, as well as the style of the crest tempt me to make the assumption that the helmet in question could be Attic–Boeotian, a Hellenistic type that was used by the Romans in the first century BCE.
2. Tip of a sword or of a scabbard.
3. Hexagonal shield. With the same boss, spina, and the circular emblem as in the shield number 3 in the newly found relief.
4. Hexagonal shield. Identical to the previous one.
5. Carnyx. Very similar, if not exactly identical to the carnyx in number 2 of the newly found relief.
6. Tip of a sword or of a scabbard.
7. Cheekguard of a helmet. The relief is badly damaged at this part, but the end of a helmet's cheekguard (buccula)
can be seen here. Unfortunately all else of the helmet has been lost.
The placement of the helmet is the same as with the helmet number 10 of the newly found relief in
relation to the shield under it. Perhaps the helmet was of the same
type, but this is impossible to say.
8. Roman pugio sheath. The sheath has a frame with two crossbands going laterally over the surfice of the sheath and connecting to its edges. These are regular features in pugio sheaths, and were made of metal. At the height of the upper crossband there are two metallic rings attached to the sides of the sheath, which were used to hang the sheath from a belt with the help of leather strips. Under the lower ring of the sheath in this relief is something that looks like a curved band, which might be a depiction of a belt where the dagger sheath is attached to.
9. Unidentified object, maybe a blade of a pugio since it's near the empty sheath of number 8, or then a part of a larger object.
Fragment 5
1. Unidentified object, with a shape of a cross.
2. Greave, similar to all the other ones.
3. Round shield. This shield type was called popanum, after a flat round cake that was used in sacrifices. Popanum shields were possibly made of thick cowhide without a wooden core, the hide being treated hard with hot water and maybe other substances. Popana had central grips and very low and wide "bosses" at the centre, made also of hide, and maybe sometimes covered with metal. The surfice of the shield was also raised around the "boss", as can be seen from the shadows in the photograph. Popanum shields were mainly used by Greek and Italic cavalrymen.
4. Popanum shield, similar to number 3.
5. Hellenistic cuirass, called thorax. Material of this armour is impossible to determine. It is most probably metal, bronze, or less likely iron. This kind of armours were also sometimes made of thick animal hide, possibly covered with white linen, but usually not at this period anymore. Metal armours offered more significant protection compared to organic materials, so metal was favoured by commanders and everyone who could afford it. This cuirass looks like an armour fit for a Hellenistic officer.
The armour is fitted with shoulder doublers (Lat. humeralia, Gr. epomides), the chest is decorated with a gorgoneion, the head of Medusa, a monster from Greek mythology who could turn people who looked at her into stone. A gorgoneion was considered an apotropaic symbol, warding of evil, and frightening the enemies its wearer. Thus it was often used as decoration on Graeco-Roman armour and shields.
This cuirass has a belt around it, an unusual feature, fitted with a large circular belt plate or buckle. Under the belt there are two rows of pteryges, hanging flaps (contrary to popular beliefe these were most possibly made of fabric and not leather), and one row of pteryges on each shoulder can be seen. Probably the armour had more rows of pteryges to offer some kind of protection to thighs and upper arms, but only the top layers are shown in this sculpture.
Romans had their pteryges sewn to the borders of subarmales, padded underarmour jackets, while the Greeks had them attached straight to the edges of the armour itself. The latter seems to be the case here. Hellenistic armours were also used by Roman officers in the Late Republican period.
6. Trumpet (Lat. tuba, Gr. salpinx), a horn used to give commands during a battle, used by both Greeks and Romans.
7. Hellenistic helmet, fitted with a peak at front, neckguard at back, cheekguards and skull decoration of unidentifiable form. No crest is attached to this helmet.
8. Unidentified object, perhaps the tip of a sword or a scabbard.
9. Unidentified object, perhaps an end of a hexagonal shield.
Identification of the monument
There is another fragment which offers a clue to who's honour this funerary monument may have been originally erected to. Here it is:
This rock carving has the letters 'LEPI' inscribed on it in Roman monumental capitals, and part of the next letter has also been preserved. Luckily for us, the next letter might be a 'D', and the whole inscription might very well read 'LEPIDVS'. Based on the time frame, this would most probably refer to Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (89–13/12 BCE), a Roman politician and military leader, most well know as the third member of the second triumvirate.
In his time Lepidus was an able military commander, but had the unfortunate fate of being always dubbed by later history as the least influential member of the second triumvirate, and who could blame him for not shining enough among the company of such men as Octavianus (future emperor Augustus) and Marcus Antonius. His political enemies also downplayed his role, first Cicero, later Augustus himself, and his "ineptitude" became cemented by Shakespeare.
Lepidus was an avid supporter of Caesar, and after his assassination in 44 BCE he joined the forces with Marcus Antonius, Caesar's fellow commander. To stop civil wars, Octavianus, Marcus Antonius and Lepidus formed the second triumvirate in 43 BCE. Lepidus got the provinces of Hispania and Gallia Narbonensis to rule, but let his eight legions be used by Antonius and Octavianus in pursuit of Brutus and Cassius, Caesar's murderers, thus rendering himself out of the glory that this deed created.
After the battle of Philippi in 42 BCE, where Octavianus' and Antonius' troops defeated Caesar's assassins, Lepidus was stripped of his provinces by Octavianus, and given the provinces of Numidia and Africa instead, while Octavianus and Antonius shared the more important regions themselves.
In 36 BCE Lepidus defeated the forces of Sextus Pompeius (son of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, one of the first triumvirs, and an enemy of Caesar) in Sicily with 14 legions. Lepidus claimed the island for himself, but was willing to give it to Octavianus along with his possessions in Africa, if he only could get back his provinces in Spain and Gallia that were legally his. Octavianus claimed this as an attempt to usurp power, Lepidus' legions switched sides to Octavianus, and Lepidus was stripped of all of his remaining powers, except of those of Pontifex maximus, Roman high priest.
Lepidus was exiled in Circeii in central Italy, where he lived the rest of his life in obscurity, although he was allowed to come to senatorial votings from time to time, only to be humiliated by the emperor Augustus by asking his vote last. Lepidus' son of the same name participated in an assassination attempt against the emperor in 31 BCE, but got caught and executed. The older Lepidus died in piece in Circeii in late 13 or early 12 BCE. Circeii is situated on the coast of Tyrrhenian Sea, about 100 kilometers south of Alba Fucens, where the reliefs were found.
There is also a marble portrait of a Roman man, identified as Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, that is kept in the National Archaeological Museum in Chieti. The sculpture is dated to mid 1st century BCE, and has been found in the Alba Fucens region. These tiny pieces of evidence make ii possible, even plausible, that the weapons reliefs come from a monument built by, or in honour of, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, an ex-triumvir.
Ca. 50 BCE. Chieti, National Archaeological Museum.
Conclusion
Based on the available evidence it can be said with a reasonable amount of certitude that the weapons relief just found in Corcumello belong to the same monumental building than earlier found fragments numbers 1–5. The building was located in the Alba Fucens region in central Italy, and was constructed in the late 1st century BCE as a funerary monument for a significant Roman statesman and military leader. Most possible identification for this man is Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (89–13/12 BCE), a triumvir of the second triumvirate, based on the fragmentary inscription saying 'LEPI(D)'. A sculptural head has also been found in the region, that has been identified as that of Lepidus.
It is always good to keep in mind that sculpture, like all art, can sometimes be misleading. Artists might not have copied their depictions from existing objects, instead they might have used their imagination, or a pattern book of acceptable things to portray. This is especially true for monumental sculpture in public monuments, such as this one, which are always propagandistic in nature. The purpose of this relief was to show the might of Rome over the barbarians, not to depict an actual pile of weapons. However, whether the pile of weapons ever took place or not, the objects depicted in the Corcumello relief are close match for what we know about Celtic weapons from archaeology and other sources. Perhaps excluding the speartips, the weapons sculpted in this monument do reflect real weapons of most probably Celtic origin.
The fragments 1, 2, 3, and 5 show a variety of weapons more Hellenistic in appearance than in the Corcumello relief, while the fragment 4 shows exactly the same Celtic style of arms. It is possible, yet unproven, that there would have been different reliefs on different sides of the funerary monument, one side showing Hellenistic armament, one showing Celtic weapons. We have no way of proving who actually owned these weapons, but several hypotheses can be formed. Were they Celtic enemies of Rome? Were they Celtic mercenaries used by Romans in their civil wars? Were they Hellenistic mercenaries used by Brutus and Cassius when fighting against the second triumvirate? Where they Hellenised Celts, or 'barbarised' Greeks, or even Romans from the opposing side of the civil war? There are no sure answers.
If we accept that the equipment in the Corcumello relief and in the relief fragment 4 are indeed Celtic, we could make a hypothetical panoply of arms that a Celtic warrior of the late 1st century BCE could potentially have worn. Of course we have no way of knowing if all these objects were ever used by the same person. Be also reminded that this reconstructed hypothetical panoply lacks ordinary clothes worn under armour, long-sleeved tunic and trousers widely used by Celtic peoples, as well as leather shoes.
I would like to thank Gioal Canestrelli for providing sources for Celtic use of pila and Emilio Laguardia for the older relief fragments.
Sources:
Lejars, T. (2014) L’armement des Celtes d’Italie.
E-publication, accessed 8.6.2021. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Armatures-de-pilum-dapres-Lejars-2008-A-Monterenzio-Vecchio-B-Morphologie-des_fig2_280814478?fbclid=IwAR2aFgy8QOjz6mKDue7wXBDexBNtIxbJbWPW8pwGUMRjWeeJxDpAtbKpsPI
Van Wonterghem, F. (1991) ‘Un fregio d'armi 'Ellenistico' ad Alba Fucens’ in Ancient Society. Vol. 22, Leuven: Peeters Publishers, pp. 283–295.
E-publication, accessed 8.6.2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44079465?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Helmet.html
https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/tag/hellenistic-greaves/
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/polybius/6*.html
https://www.enotes.com/topics/arrian/critical-essays/criticism
http://www.digitalattic.org/home/war/vegetius/
http://www.artearti.net/magazine/articolo/memorie_di_roma/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aemilius_Lepidus_(triumvir)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaeum_Alpium
