The analysis of Trajan’s Column has raised controversies and passions from the very first scientific studies.1 The lack of consistent literary sources on the Romans’ wars against the Dacians at the begin-ning of the 2nd century AD transformed the Column, otherwise a remarkable monument and testimony to the grandeur of the Roman Empire, into a first-hand historical source. The column has been consid-ered a “history book” and approaches vary; some scholars take a pragmatic approach by reading each succeeding scene like a narrative while others prefer a more relative analysis of the symbolism evoked by the episodes. The designers of the column were inspired by the writings of the period and their imagination but were also influenced by current topics of propaganda regarding the Emperor, the State, and the Roman army.2 The purpose of our study is to point out whether and how the medical system is reflected in this document-monument.
The epigraphic material and archaeological sources in general, as well as contemporary authors provide much of the documented information about medical science in the Roman army. Augustus organized a medical corps and the emperors of the Principate perfected it. Patricia Baker advances the opinion that the medical corps is one of the few components that was uniformly developed in all mili-tary units.3 Medici, medical orderlies, but also veterinarii were attached to various units.4 They were immunes, which exempted them from the daily duties of ordinary soldiers.5
Particularly the inscriptions refer to medics whose designations suggest that they were assigned to various units of the land forces or the navy, such as medici legionis6, medici alae7, medici cohortis8, medici duplicarii.9 Additionally, in the army one can also find specialist medics, medici chirurgi10 and medici ocularii11. The imperial house has its own medical apparatus, and the emperor was perma-nently followed by his personal physician, especially when he carried out military campaigns.12
Historians have also identified useful direct or indirect information on the medical services avail-able within the Roman army of the 2nd century AD on Trajan’s Column.
1 The study of the Column already began in the Renaissance and has continued until today. A selection of the most com-monly referenced monographs are: Ciacono (1576); Bartoli, Bellori (1672); Fabretti (1683); Engel (1794); Froehner (1865);
Pollen (1874); Reinach (1886); Petersen (1899–1903); Cichorius (1896–1900); Antonescu (1910); Lehmann-Hartleben (1926); Vulpe (1988); Coarelli (1999); Pogorzelski (2012).
2 On the political propaganda on the Column see Condurachi (1982).
3 Baker (2004) 1.
4 Wilmanns (1995) 70 calculated that by the mid-2nd century AD about 600–800 medics were probably active, that is ap-proximately 10 medics for each legion to which medics’ helpers should be added.
5 Dig. 50.6.7 (Tarruntenus Paternus).
6 CIL III 3537, 3583, 14347.5, 14349; CIL V 4367; CIL VIII 2872, 2951; CIL XIII 5208, 6700; IDR II 42; CIG 4766, 5088; AE 1923, 14; AE 1937, 180; Cod. Iust. 10.52.1.
7 CIL XI 3007; Gummerus (1932) n° 377.
8 CIL III 10854; CIL VI 20, 212, 1058–1059, 2532, 2594, 37194; CIL VII 690; CIL XIII 6621, 7415, 11767; SEG XIV 615; AE 1903, 290; AE 1917/1918, 118; AE 1945, 62; AE 1952, 143; Wilmanns (1995) n° 79 and Samama (2003) n° 415.
9 CIL VI 3910, 32769; CIL X 3441–3444; CIL XI 29, 6944; AE 1984, 337; AE 1995, 1350.
10 From Italy see a medicus chirurgus cohortis: AE 1945, 62.
11 Axius, medicus ocularius classis Britannicae, is mentioned by Galenus in De comp. med. 4.8.
12 Literary sources preserved the names of the personal physicians of some Emperors: Caricles (Tiberius): Tac. ann. 6.50;
Andromachus of Crete (Nero): Gal. De theriaca ad Pisonem 14; Quintus Stertinius Xenophon of Kos, followed by Gaius Stertinius Xenophon and Scribonius Largus (Claudius): Tac. ann. 12.61 and 67, Titus Statilius Criton of Heraclea Salbace (Trajan): Lyd. mag. 2.28 — see details on this historian-physician who provided medical assistance to the Emperor during the wars against the Dacians in Scarborough (1985); Galenus (Marcus Aurelius and then Commodus).
Dan Aparaschivei 72!
The Column has primarily provided general evidence confirming the good organization of the Roman medical system. These not only include the dressing of wounds but also maintaining the sol-diers’ health and preventing diseases.13 For instance, the representation of the majority of the soldiers with an optimal tonus suggests and confirms the selection (probatio) which was taking place during that period in the Roman army and which was based on age,14 height,15 and health16. The soldiers re-ceived adequate food, while physical exercises helped them maintain their best possible physical and mental shape.17
A large part of the historiography of the Column and also in the studies of the history of medicine refer to one episode in scene XL, as having a connection with the medical practice. Most scholars in-terpret the scene as representing the specialized medical staff of the Roman army in full action on the battlefield.18 There are serious disputes pertaining to the rank held by the represented people, but also to the specific operations they are carrying out.19
In a field dressing station five people are represented of which two have wounded limbs and the other three are helping the two. In fact, we can point out two distinct scenes. The first one shows a legionary supporting a fellow, legionary or praetorian from behind. He legionary is in an obvious state of distress caused by an arm wound. Several decades earlier, Lino Rossi tried to advance the idea that he could have been a miles medicus.20 The people in front of the wounded, a soldier from an auxiliary detachment, sustains or sees the left arm of the one showing a passive attitude. Rossi also identifies this person as granting medical assistance to a medicus ordinarius21 with arguments which pertain to the aspect and equipment thereof, but which were not convincing.22
The second scene refers more explicitly to medical activity even though it is a rather common one. It represents a man in auxiliary armour helping bandage a wounded soldier. Discussions on this
13 Keeping a satisfactory army required two aspects: prevention (which means maintaining a high tonus by assuring eating conditions, of the basic hygiene, regular training etc.) and healing (either of wounds sustained in fight, or of diseases which could also occur during peace). Studies regarding the soldiers’ diet demonstrate that they received the necessary food quanti-ties in order to keep them in good shape during peace and, especially, during wartime: Davies (1971).
14 This parameter is difficult to establish with accuracy, even though some calculations were carried out on the inscriptions.
Wilmanns (1995) 46, note 105 remarks that in 75% of the documented cases, the age of recruitment was between 17 and 20.
15 Veg. mil. 1.5; Cod. Theod. 7.13.3.
16 Herodian. 4.9.5: “He ordered the youths to form in rows so that he might approach each one and determine whether his age, size of body, and state of health qualified him for military service” (transl. from E. C. Echols, Herodian of Antioch’s History of the Roman Empire, Berkeley, Los Angeles 1961). Also, two Egyptian papyri mention that the soldiers went through physical examination to be checked for special marks or scars, in order to be identified on the battlefield if fallen, as well as to have their eyesight thoroughly checked: Davies (1969b) 211, 222; Baker (2004) 37. Vegetius gives details about what a recruiting officer should watch out for: Veg. mil. 1.6: Sit ergo adulescens Martio deputandus vigilantibus oculis, erecta cervice, lato pectore, umeris musculosis, valentibus brachiis, digitis longioribus, ventre modicus, exilior clunibus, suris et pedibus non superflua carne distentis sed nervorum duritia collectis.
17 For details on the daily activities of the soldiers see Davies (1974) 299–338. Onesander 10.5 specifies: “For such exer-cise and training the army is kept in good health, eating and drinking everything with heartier appetite, even if the fare is plain, desiring nothing more luxurious” (transl. from http://penelope.uchicago.edu).
18 Rossi (1971) 152; Krug (1984) 205; DeFilippis Cappai (1993) 164; Salazar (2000) 82–83; Depeyrot (2008) 68.
19 Scarborough (1968) 254; Davies (1972) 8; Baker (2004) 43 with various hypotheses.
20 Rossi (1971) 152. The title of miles medicus is quite ambiguous, but it seems to suggest that these physicians were not part of the officer corps. Only three examples were found throughout the Empire (Pannonia Superior – CIL III 4061; Ger-mania Inferior – CIL XIII 7943; Pannonia Inferior – CIL III 14347.5 and, perhaps, in Dalmatia – AE 1903, 376). Baker (2004) 44 is of the opinion that the milites medici were ordinary soldiers who were exempted from work only in case of emergency, in order to help attending to the wounded. There is also the hypothesis that the title of miles would indicate that the respective medic received his training after joining the army: Nutton (1969) 268.
21 Medicus ordinarius is regarded as the rank equivalent of a centurion: Davies (1969a) 89; Wilmanns (1995) 80–88; Sala-zar (2000) 88. For the opinion that he was “first soldier in his duties, not a physician”, see Scarborough (1968) 258. There are few such physicians attested throughout the Empire, all from different units: legions (Raetia – CIL III 5959, 6532; Pan-nonia Superior – CIL III 4279; Numidia – CIL VIII 18314), auxiliaries (CIL VII 690), numeri (Germania Superior – CIL XIII 11979), which implies a coherent organization of the medical system within the army. See details in Baker (2004) 44 and appendix 2, n° 7, 18, 22, 39.
22 Rossi (1969) 542–543 concludes he would have been mature enough to have an important position in the army medical staff, fact proven by his beard and his age, but also by the special helmet. He is contradicted with arguments by Davies (1972) 8, note 54. Vulpe (1988) 89 also speaks of a medicus.
Medical Care for the Roman Army on Trajan’s Column? 73!
scene are intense in the specialized literature. There were vigorous debates surrounding the issue whether the person was a medic or an orderly. The opinion that he is a capsarius23 (from capsa, box for bandages or first-aid kit), a medic helper with the tasks comparable to a modern medical nurse has prevailed for many decades.24 The relief on the Column clearly depicts that the respective person is holding a roll of bandages which he seems to use to treat a lesion on the right leg of the wounded.
Several decades ago, John Scarborough formulated the theory that this person might be a simple sol-dier, since he is represented wearing armour.25 Still, the fact that he had standard military equipment does not justify his exclusion from among the medics active in the front, as this was however, a natural result of the war-zone conditions. It is undoubted that his clothing is identical to that of the wounded comrade he is attending to and who is clearly an auxiliary, maybe a cavalryman.26
A very interesting tombstone from Odessos, a Greek city in the province of Moesia Inferior, could clarify the situation of the medics’ equipment during the battles. This funeral monument mentions Asclepiades, who is represented in a seated position, bearded, and wearing clothes specific to Ascle-pius.27 From the inscription he is designated as archiatros (head of the civil physicians of Odessos). In the lower register of the monument five pieces of Roman military equipment are represented: the shield (clipeus), the armour (lorica), the helmet (galea), the sword (gladius), and the greaves (cne-mides) (Pl. 26, Fig. 1). The equipment might also suggest that he served in the army as voluntary phy-sician sometime and then might illustrate how an army medic would be dressed with elements of the standard equipment of a military.28 Taking these aspects into consideration, there is the possibility that those people represented in the mentioned scenes of the Column might be members of the medical staff.
It is plausible also that, due to battlefield conditions, the soldiers tended the wounds themselves, at least until better care became available. It is known that simple soldiers in the Roman army had the capacity and necessary knowledge to take care of each other’s minor wounds, without waiting for a medic. Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes soldiers who applied false bandages to avoid being sent into battle.29 Describing the battle of Bedriacum, in 69 AD, Tacitus mentions that “in the same tents some soldiers nursed the wounds of brothers”,30 among many other examples.31
Consequently, those represented on the Column could be medics, but also simple soldiers, fellows of the wounded, without any special medical training. So, we can conclude that based only on equip-ment it is quite difficult to identify whether a person from the Column is part of the medical corps of that unit or not.32
23 The capsarii are mentioned a few times throughout the Empire: Germania Superior – CIL XIII 5623 (first like miles legionis and then capsarius), 11979 (Genius capsariorum); Pannonia Superior – ILS 9095; Pannonia Inferior – AE 1986, 594 (miles capsarius legionis), CIL III 13386 (eques capsarius), ILS 9169 (capsarius cohortis); Numidia – CIL VIII 2563 (capsarii, discentes capsariorum legionis). They were part of the medical corps of the army but, being regarded more like medical orderlies with relative minor responsibilities, it was thought that they might be garrisoned with the auxiliaries and not with the legions: Wilmanns (1995) 173. Another hypothesis states that they were specialists in treating the snake and scorpion bites, in the regions where these were a menace: Plioreschi (1998) 548, notes 60–61.
24 Davies (1969a) 84; Wilmanns (1995) 135 considers they were very common in the army; Baker (2004) 43 unlike Salazar (2000) 82 who is more circumspect. Also a difference in treating the patients was discussed, meaning that capsarii would have taken care exclusively of the auxiliary military units, and medici were in charge of the legionaries, a situation which would be precisely the one on the relief of the Column: Wilmanns (1995) 174. Penso (1984) 120 uses the general designa-tion of medici castrensis.
25 Scarborough (1968) 260. He thinks that “the medici were those soldiers of a legion or of an auxiliary detachment who had demonstrated their capabilities for wounds dressing and a primitive surgery, but who were not trained physicians”. See also Richmond (1935) 13–14.
26 Rossi (1971) 152.
27 IGBulg I2 150; Samama (2004) n° 94.
28 Nutton (1977) n° 79. See also Aparaschivei (2012) 75–77.
29 Dion. Hal. ant. 9.50.5.
30 Tac. hist. 2.45.3: isdem tentoriis alii fratrum, alii propinquorum vulnera fovebant.
31 See Scarborough (1968) note 2.
32 In a specific context Coulston (1989) 37 confirms that Trajan’s Column “cannot be employed as an independent source for military equipment”.
Dan Aparaschivei 74!
Practically, the only element which suggests medical activity in these scenes remains the wrap-ping of bandages. Still, in my view, if the representation of a medical process had really been the ex-plicit intention of the scene, much more relevant elements of the instrument kit would have been rep-resented, such as a scalpel, a probe, a forceps, which could have been handled by specialists, whatever their level of training. Within the Empire there are several monuments that depict the specific medical instrument kit in a precise context and with the intention of suggesting the medical act itself or the training of physicians. This is not the case of the Column where, symbolically, only a bandage was represented; bandage which could have been used by any soldier without a special medical training.
Under these circumstances, I believe that the Column does not provide in-depth views of ancient medicine and the mentioned episode should be viewed in its symbolic significance and not “ad lit-teram”.33 Moreover, the comments, interpretations and questions raised on the basis of these scenes, such as the rank or medical training of the represented persons are ineloquent. Why? Because, in my opinion, both those who ordered the Column and those executing it did not waste time thinking whether they should represent a medicus or a capsarius, a chirurgus or an ocularius. These specialists undoubtedly operated within Trajan’s army, within a well-organized medical system, with instruments and specific locations built according to the necessities of medical science.34 Still, despite this complex medical apparatus, the artists of the Column did not intend to offer the details of this part of the orga-nization of the Roman military.
Before providing an explanation it must be kept in mind that the Column relates the Dacian cam-paigns in the form of a triumphalist narration for the Roman army and State, on the one side and on the other it is an ideal opportunity to emphasize the virtues of Trajan. The famous text by Dio Cassius’
— “And when the bandages gave out, he (Trajan) is said not to have spared even his own clothing, but to have cut it up into strips”35 — demonstrates what these scenes were actually intended to represent.
Normally, it would have been almost impossible to be in a situation where no bandages were avail-able, especially in such a well-organized army that had medics, helpers, and soldiers trained in first aid. But the media impact of such a gesture made by the emperor would have been fantastic.
In this context, the invincible Roman soldier should have been represented instead of the wounded one, lacking powers. An optimistic attitude of the army was intended and the medics, the wounded, and medical interventions would not have supported an image suggesting a victorious army. In fact, the only situation when wounded Roman soldiers are presented on the Column is in the already men-tioned scenes. Moreover, they receive assistance while seated, a very dignified posture, suggesting that they were not in desperate and irreparable circumstances.
Thus, I tend to believe that these images are part of the category of “suggested” ideas, rather than
“seen” images, as they were perceived by most historians of ancient medicine.36 The discussed episode could imply the idea of the care soldiers showed to their comrades, but also the care of the Emperor towards his subjects, a fashionable characteristic in the description of an optimus princeps.37 It is the human side which is touched upon in its essence and does not remove but completes the stoic
33 Including in my previous work, I have treated this topic with the conviction that the represented people could have been members of medical apparatus: Aparaschivei (2012) 26, 85–86.
34 E.g. one of the best preserved edifices of this kind in the Roman world: the military hospital, valetudinarium, of Novae, in the neighboring province of Moesia Inferior. Among the important measures taken by Trajan and his army before or be-tween the two wars against the Dacians (construction of roads, the bridge of Drobeta, etc) he also had the hospital of Novae built, an edifice which was very useful to the Roman army, for at least one century. The hospital was most probably built with government funding by the soldiers of the legion stationed there, I Italica, with the help from other military units. Its dimensions were 80!73 m, with an interior yard of 42.40!32.60 m, comparable to the ones of the military hospital of Carnuntum: Press (1987); (1990); (1994). Certain opinions provide Caracalla’s reign as terminus ante quem for its func-tioning, while the latest research shows that the end of this edifice would have been under Gordian III: Dyczek (2005) 231–
232. Giuseppe Penso (1984) fig. 84 erroneously and without arguments interpreted several wooden constructions which appear on the Column as being possible valetudinaria.
35 Cass. Dio 68.8.2 (transl. from E. Cary, H. B. Foster, Dio Cassius, Roman History, Volume VIII Books 61–70, [Loeb Classical Library 176], Cambridge/MA 1955).The scene probably happened after the difficult battle which took place near Adamclisi. For the location of this episode in Moesia Inferior see Vulpe (1964).
36 The differentiation was made by Rossi (1971) 98.
37 Onesander 10.25–26.
Medical Care for the Roman Army on Trajan’s Column? 75!
ples which influenced the Roman military training already in the Republican period. In my view, the artists who created the monument intended to render some cardinal virtues,like pietas, clementia-humanitas,38 but also dignitas. This does not exclude the possibility that the written sources used by the artists in the representation of the events, might have referred to the medics, their helpers, or the medical facilities in the army. Still, since allegorical abstractions are frequently invoked by the analy-sis of the reliefs on the Column, it seems more plausible that the respective scenes are part of the rep-resentation pattern of the Roman army, with its majesty and invincibility, but with a dose of humanity which turns this war machine and its commander into elements enviable by any other people or mili-tary leader. In addition, the Column represented a stylized discourse, addressed to the people. I do not think that within this discourse the mentioned scenes were intended to transmit details about the
ples which influenced the Roman military training already in the Republican period. In my view, the artists who created the monument intended to render some cardinal virtues,like pietas, clementia-humanitas,38 but also dignitas. This does not exclude the possibility that the written sources used by the artists in the representation of the events, might have referred to the medics, their helpers, or the medical facilities in the army. Still, since allegorical abstractions are frequently invoked by the analy-sis of the reliefs on the Column, it seems more plausible that the respective scenes are part of the rep-resentation pattern of the Roman army, with its majesty and invincibility, but with a dose of humanity which turns this war machine and its commander into elements enviable by any other people or mili-tary leader. In addition, the Column represented a stylized discourse, addressed to the people. I do not think that within this discourse the mentioned scenes were intended to transmit details about the