The Roman commander Lucius Aemilius Paulus described the military camp as the soldier’s second homeland: ‘its rampart serves as his city walls, and his tent is the soldier’s hearth and home.’106 The closed military community of the Roman army will have played an important part in sustaining not only discipline but also the spirit of military comradeship and mutual respect and reliance that are seemingly crucial in keeping soldiers together during campaigns and battles. In this environment the soldier will ideally have felt a high sense of duty; he will have been eager not to disgrace himself in front of his comrades in his unit, and in particular not to let them down. This is important in military psychology, and military service could engender a feeling of excitement, or even of irresponsibility, in that soldiers were carrying out actions that they would not otherwise be allowed to do or would not dream of doing.107 The self-confident, soldierly enthusiasm of the military community and its concerns are vividly expressed by an inscription set up in Africa by an anonymous chief centurion:
I wanted to hold slaughtered Dacians. I held them.
I wanted to sit on a chair of peace. I sat on it.
I wanted to take part in famous triumphs. It was done.
I wanted the full benefits of the chief centurionate. I have had them.
I wanted to see naked nymphs. I saw them.108
In military life unit loyalty and the accompanying symbols are very important, especially colours or standards, badges and other insignia. The Roman army was highly structured, and had a well-developed idea of comradeship, expressed in the words commilitium and commilito, which as the address ‘fellow-soldier’ or ‘comrade’ was used not only by soldiers but also by emperors to inspire and flatter their men.109 The legion had a complement of about 5240 men divided into ten cohorts, nine of which consisted of six centuries with eighty men in each, while the other, the first or leading cohort, had five centuries of double size {800 men). There were also 120 legionary cavalry. Each century was further divided into ten contubernia.
Therefore the smallest unit in the Roman army was the contubernium; eight comrades shared the same tent and the use of a mule in the field, and in a permanent military camp shared two rooms: one for storage, the other for sleeping. So, each soldier performed military chores, messed and fought in the company of the same small group of people. Illustration comes from the Roman siege camp at the Jewish fortress of Masada, where the hearths have been identified where each contubernium cooked its meals.110 Close proximity to his colleagues might well encourage a soldier to put on a brave show in battle.111
The century was a self-contained unit under the command of a centurion, and was sometimes identified by his name. The tents of the ten contubernia making up a century were grouped together, and in permanent camps each century had its own accommodation of rectangular barrack blocks containing at least ten double rooms; the centuries were arranged in groups of six according to their cohort. Each cohort was commanded by its senior centurion, and with 480 men was small enough to give the soldiers a sense of personal identity, and also large enough to operate independently when required; it probably had its own standard to instil loyalty and act as a rallying point.112
The legion, however, was the backbone of the Roman army. Large units are important because they very clearly have a permanent existence and identity, and embody tradition and the history of the army. They can help develop military ideology and inculcate esprit de corps and rivalry, inspiring the soldier to make his unit do better than other units.113 A long-established unit such as the legion, or the regiment in a modern army, provided for new recruits a ready-made framework shored up by an attractive mystique, and of course was also the spiritual home of the veteran professional soldier.
In the Roman army each legion had a number and a name, based on the circumstances of its foundation, the location of its early service, a famous exploit or some kind of imperial favour. For example, legion V Alaudae (‘Larks’) was originally raised by Caesar in Transalpine Gaul and took its name from the crest of bird feathers on the soldiers’ helmets. Legion I Minervia was formed by Domitian in ad 83 and named after the goddess Minerva whom he specially favoured. Legion XXX Ulpia Victrix (‘Ulpian Victorious’) was named after its founder Trajan and its distinguished conduct in the Second Dacian War. The legion XIV Gemina won the titles Martia Victrix (‘Martial and Victorious’) for its part in the defeat of Boudicca in Britain in ad 60 to 61. Legionary names remained unchanged, and most legions were distinguished by their longevity. Of the twenty-five legions in service in ad 14, twenty were still in service in the second century with the same numerals and usually the same name.114 The identifying numbers of legions that had been disgraced or destroyed were not used again; for example, the numerals XVII, XVIII, XIX, which had belonged to the three legions lost in Germany under Quinctilius Varus.
The supreme symbol of each legion was its eagle standard, which represented in gold or gilt an eagle with outspread wings. This symbolized the continuity of the legion’s existence. The eagle was moved from the base only when the whole legion was on the march, and was planted in the ground first when camp was pitched. It was kept in the camp shrine and received religious observances.115 The importance of the eagle standard in military ideology may be judged from the many references to it in literature and art. Indeed, it was used tactically, in that a commander, by deliberately putting the standard at risk, could force the soldiers of the legion to advance to the rescue. To lose the standard to the enemy in battle was considered the ultimate disgrace. Augustus arranged great celebrations when he obtained the return of the military standard lost by Crassus in Parthia over thirty years before.116 No effort was spared to find the eagles lost withVarus’three legions. Some legions also displayed their own emblem, often associated with signs of the Zodiac. For example, legion II Augusta, which had been founded or reorganized by Augustus, had a capricorn, which symbolized his good-luck. Even detachments of legions (vexillationes) had their own standards, a decorated banner carried on a pole, and therefore their own identity.117There was therefore strong group identity and cohesion in the Roman army. During the mutiny of ad 14 proposals to merge the three Pannonian legions failed because all parties insisted on retaining the identity of each legion; eventually they put all the standards side by side on a platform.118 The same kind of loyalty applied to units of auxilia, which had a number and a name (although the ethnic significance of the names was eventually diluted), and standards for each cohort and cavalry ala. These units numbered either about 500 or, from the end of the first century ad, sometimes between 800 and 1000. Again the cohorts were subdivided into centuries and contu-bernia, and the alae into squadrons (turmae) with thirty-two men in each.119
Unit identity was built up and maintained by military training and day-to-day life in the camp. The troops’ common purpose and identity were expressed by the oath (sacramentum) they swore on enlistment and renewed annually, ‘to carry out all the emperor’s commands energetically, never desert their military service or shirk death on behalf of the Roman state’.120 Then there was a common training routine, which was aimed at physical fitness, proficiency in marching, unit manoeuvres, and weapons drill in throwing the pilum and using a two-edged sword.121 The new recruit, trained along with his comrades, would receive his uniform, which also served to bind him into the military hierarchy, since legionaries had a distinctive outfit, marking them out from auxiliaries, while praetorians had a uniform that indicated their elite status. When Otho ordered the arsenal in the praetorian camp to be opened as he organized the overthrow of Galba, normal distinctions and niceties were ignored: ‘Weapons were hastily snatched up without tradition and military discipline, which laid down that praetorians and legionaries should be distinguished by their equipment. In confusion they seized helmets and shields meant for auxiliaries.’122
The routine of camp life sustained and bound together the military community. The drudgery of chores and minor duties will have served to remind soldiers of their common purpose and identity, which marked them out from civilians even when there was no war in prospect. The records of military bureaucrats preserved on papyri or wooden tablets reveal the daily life of an enclosed community. For example, the record of a detachment of the legion III Augusta stationed at Bu-Njem in north Africa in the third century ad indicates that, of fifty-seven soldiers on 24 December, there were present one clerk, one orderly, one scout, eight cavalry; twenty-two were possibly on exercises, one man was on the watchtower, one at the gate, one at the commanding officer’s, one possibly doing building work, three were sick, one was being flogged, seventeen had no specific task of whom fifteen were at the bakehouse (?) and two at the bath.123 The clubs (collegia) that certain groups of soldiers and officers were permitted to form will also have contributed to the comradeship and team spirit of military life. These clubs met to honour military divinities and the achievements of the imperial family, and had an active social role in providing mutual assistance for their mem-bers.124 Soldiers’ gravestones also demonstrate a close-knit military environment. It became common practice for soldiers who had died in service to be commemorated by an epitaph, often set up under the terms of their will by relatives or by their comrades. The better-off had elaborate memorials depicting them in uniform, as in a famous example from Colchester: ‘Marcus Favonius Facilis, of the tribe Pollia, centurion of legion XX. The freedmen Vercundus and Novicius erected [it]. He lies here.’125
Battle imposes its own restraints on soldiers, most of whom probably feel compelled to carry out orders and do their duty with their comrades in the fighting. In a well-disciplined army the habit of obedience is important, and in the Roman army this was enforced by military law, which regulated daily relations between comrades, ensuring proper and responsible behaviour in the confined life of the barracks. Clear rules also defined the soldier’s responsibilities in battle to his unit, comrades and officers. The most important aspect of this concerned desertion, loss of weapons and cowardice. Those guilty of desertion and cowardice in the face of the enemy in time of war were liable to the death penalty. But offenders could be much more leniently treated outside campaigns, with a sensible scale of punishment depending on the circumstances and length of desertion. Emperors sometimes intervened to reduce the penalties inflicted,126 but on other occasions commanders made an example of certain individuals or units that had disgraced themselves in combat. The emperor Augustus, so the story goes, inflicted the traditional punishment of decimation on units that gave way in battle.127 This meant that one in ten soldiers was selected by lot and executed. Although much depended on individual commanders, in the main the Roman army was well organized and responsive to orders in battle, and there are few accounts of serious indiscipline or collapse of morale.128 Josephus, who had seen Roman troops at first hand during the Jewish revolt of ad 66 to 70, particularly admired their seemingly unbreakable discipline in battle, though it may have been in his interests to exaggerate: ‘Therefore they sustain the shock of combat very easily. For their usual well-ordered ranks are not disrupted by any confusion, or numbed by fear, or exhausted by toil; so, certain victory inevitably follows since the enemy cannot match this.’129
Soldiers need to feel that conspicuous acts of courage in battle will be rewarded. The Roman army had a highly developed system of military decorations that suited different acts of bravery, according to the rank and status of the recipient. These decorations took the form of gold and silver necklaces and armlets, and inscribed discs that could be worn on armour for dress parades. There were also crowns representing a waH for the first man to scale a city wall or storm a camp, and any soldier could also win the ‘civic crown’ (civica corona) for saving a comrade’s life.130 Soldiers took these decorations seriously, and recorded them on their career inscriptions or funeral monuments, usually indicating that they had received them from the emperor himself. This shows how the soldiers valued the idea that the emperor knew of their exploits. A legionary from Cremona had his military decorations buried next to his ashes.131 It is of course unlikely that emperors distributed decorations in person except when on campaign. However, after the faH of Jerusalem in ad 70, Titus, who ranked as a prince, held a public ceremony in which he decorated soldiers personally in the presence of the whole army.132 Special money payments and promotions were also made.133 In a few cases we hear how an entire unit was decorated for its bravery in battle. Thus the first cohort of Britons acquired from Trajan the titles ‘Ulpian Decorated Loyal and Faithful’ because ‘they performed dutifully and loyally in the Dacian campaign’. They also received a special grant of Roman citizenship.134
The morale of soldiers in the battle line has much to do with their offi-cers. Those who earned the trust and respect of their men for their technical competence, which helped protect the soldiers’ lives, for their consistent discipline, for their conspicuous presence in the camp and on the battlefield, for their courage and for the example they set, and even for honourable wounds, could get the best out of the troops even when the battle was going badly. The senior command of the Roman army was recruited from the upper classes. There were six military tribunes (five equestrians and one senator)135 in each legion, which was commanded by the legatus legionis, usually a senator of praetorian rank. Larger military forces, consisting of several legions and auxiliary regiments, which were stationed in certain provinces, were commanded by a senator of consular rank, the legatus Augusti, who was also the provincial governor. There was no military academy or formal training for any of these military officers, who had differing levels of interest, aptitude and experience of army command. Tacitus in his biography of his father-in-law, Agricola, a distinguished commander, neatly sums up the different approaches of young Romans to military life:
But Agricola did not behave extravagantly like those young men who turn their military service into an unruly party; he did not use his military tribunate and his inexperience as an excuse to seek long leave and a good time. Instead he got to know the province and to be known by the army.136
But, whatever their shortcomings in training and preparation, Roman officers seem to have taken their responsibilities seriously, both to the men they commanded and in the conduct of warfare. There was a clear and consistent command structure, and Roman senators, even if they produced few really inspiring commanders, like a Pompey or a Caesar, were not armchair generals; they wore the traditional military dress of a Roman general, commanded in person and took real military decisions. They seem in general to have been proud of their role with the army. Some even died fighting, like Claudius Fronto: ‘after successful battles against the Germans and the Iazyges he feU fighting bravely to the end for the Fatherland.’137 Even Quinctilius Varus achieved a dignified end by committing suicide.
However enthusiastic they were, Roman officers could rarely expect more than three years in command of a legion or an army, and had only a limited chance to build up a rapport with their men.138 Here the senior officers were effectively supported by the centurions, who had charge of eighty men.139 They are often seen as the equivalent of non-commissioned officers in a modern army, but this does not do them justice. They were in the main very experienced, well-tried soldiers often serving for twenty years or more, many of whom were destined to go on to more senior posts in the army and then in civilian administration.140 They had a crucial position between military tribunes and the ordinary soldiers, and were certainly responsible for much of the day-to-day discipline, organization and training of the army.141 In battle they ensured that the constituent units of the legion carried out their orders. The centurions of the first cohort and the chief centurion (primus pilus) of the legion were very senior and would have useful advice to offer at councils of war.
Ancient writers seemingly endorse the accepted truism that the presence of a supreme commander or king or emperor on the battlefield brings special encouragement to the troops. Dio commented that Tiberius sat on a high, conspicuous platform to watch an attack on Seretium in Dalmatia in AD 9 not only so that he could provide help if he had to, but also to encourage his men to fight with more spirit.142 Similarly, during Septimius Severus’ march on Rome in ad 193,‘the soldiers carried out all their duties enthusiastically because they respected him for sharing their work and the leading role he took in all their hardships’.143 The Roman emperor was at all times a focus of loyalty in the army. In the ideal relationship he was someone with whom the soldiers could identify. We see this in the letter of a recruit in Egypt seeking service in an auxiliary cohort ‘so that I may be able... to serve under the standards of the Emperor, our Lord’.144 From the late first century ad onwards, the Roman emperor accompanied his army on major campaigns and often directed the troops personally on the battlefield. Indeed, some emperors while on campaign tried to lead the life of a true feUow-soldier.145 In a tradition that went back to the early Republic, a Roman commander usually made a speech to his army before battle. Emperors followed this practice, and in the right setting could probably make themselves heard to groups of several thousand. Ancient writers tell us (probably rightly) that they had a simple message, and encouraged the troops by emphasizing their abilities and denigrating the enemy (see Plate 2.1).146 At the siege of Jerusalem, Titus believed that hope and encouraging words best-roused the fervour of troops in battle, and that exhortations and promises often made men forget danger.147 It was not, however, until the third century that a Roman emperor actually fought in battle. Maximinus, campaigning against the Germans, plunged into a swamp on horseback in pursuit of the enemy and shamed the rest of the army into following his example.148
It was also the commander’s job to boost his army’s confidence by performing appropriate religious observances. In the Republic magistrates normally tried to discover the will of the gods before major state undertakings. Therefore, before joining battle, commanders took the auspices in various ways, for example, by sacrificing animal victims and examining their entrails for appropriate signs. Indeed, the right of command was often expressed as the right to take the auspicia. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this was important. We can enjoy the story of the Roman admiral who threw the sacred chickens into the sea because they were reluctant to eat, and lost the battle. It is, however, difficult to tell how seriously the troops took divine support in battle, or how often signs and auguries were invented, as they often were in political life. But we might think that the poor men from rural Italy who made up the army would tend to be superstitious.
In the imperial period inscriptions set up by soldiers indicate that many of them privately worshipped gods with apparent sincerity and feeling.149 A soldier of legion I Minervia set up an altar at Cologne in honour of local mother goddesses (Matronae Aufanae) to celebrate his return from duty with a detachment of his legion, which had travelled from Bonn to the east; he says that he had been at ‘the river Alutus beyond the Caucasus mountain’.150 Furthermore, the great military rituals were continued, not surprisingly, since the emperor was also chief priest. The army had specialists to kill animals (victimarii), and to examine their entrails (haruspices). Campaigns and victories were accompanied by sacrifices, offerings, vows and religious festivals. This is spectacularly illustrated by the representations on Trajan’s monumental column, which show the emperor making an offering at an altar and presiding over the formal purification (lustratio) of the army before the invasion of Dacia (see Plate 2.2).151 On a more humble
Plate 2.1 Scene from Trajan’s Column: Trajan addressing his troops
Source: Lepper and Frere (1988), by permission of Mr Frank Lepper and Professor Sheppard Frere
Plate 2.2 Scene from Trajan’s Column: Trajan conducting a sacrifice
Source: Lepper and Frere (1988), by permission of Mr Frank Lepper and Professor Sheppard Frere
Level a distance slab from Bridgeness in Scotland depicts the officers of the legion II Augusta looking on while their commander pours a liquid offering at an altar.152 In ad 213 when the emperor Caracalla set out on campaign against German tribes, the college of the Arval Brethren duly offered prayers for his good fortune and victory.153 Augustus tried to channel religious interest and personal emotions by establishing a calendar of military festivals and celebrations that was still being used (with suitable additions) in the third century ad by the twentieth cohort of Palmyrenes stationed at Dura-Europus on the river Euphrates. The calendar was written in Latin and had obviously been heavily used.154 It contained major Roman festivals, but also emphasized the imperial family, with many celebrations of the reigning emperor and other imperial luminaries. There was a close link to military life with observances for military divinities, pay-day and the military standards.155 The calendar, a variation of which was probably to be found in all military camps, will have helped to confirm a common identity and loyalty in the army, based around the rituals and observances of the traditional Roman religious system. The shrine in every army camp contained the military standards and statues of the emperor, and served as a further emotional focus of loyalty and worship in an organized, professional environment. Thus Turranius Firminus, veteran of legion II Adiutrix based at Aquincum (Budapest), put up his own money to repair the sentry-box ‘for the safeguarding of the standards and sacred statues’.156 Modern army life has been described as a ‘total institution’, in that a barrier is built between the institution and the outside world to restrict interaction between them, so that the purposes for which the institution exists may be most effectively pursued without external interference.157 In some ways the Roman army prepared for war in this way, and, like a modern army with its chaplains, also had the emotional seal of its own religious mechanisms.
In the ancient world at certain times and places violence was commonplace in society. What men were asked to do in battle was possibly not so different from what they saw around them in day-to-day life, and battlefield weaponry was not much more formidable than that available in the streets. Therefore, the ordeal of hand-to-hand fighting and bloodshed was not necessarily alien to those who joined up, and the thought of it might not be a deterrent. Recruits might hope to encounter little fighting, and those from a poor and disadvantaged background could readily see the army as a means of social advancement not otherwise available to men of their class, and therefore worth the risk. Since the rewards of military service included admittance to Roman citizenship and absorption into the Roman way of life, soldiers could identify with the idea of ‘Roman’. Therefore it was not a lofty ideology but the army itself, with its unique identity, discipline, routine and comradeship, that sustained their loyalty in a way of life for which they would fight, and seasoned them to customary displays of courage. Well equipped and prepared, the army could give a soldier confidence that he was part of a seemingly invincible structure that dominated the contemporary environment and looked after his interests. An inscription from Novae in Lower Moesia (base of legion I Italica) illustrates not only long service in the military community but also the opportunities available to ordinary recruits, expressed through simple piety and respect for the emperor:
For the safety of the Emperor, the vow that I Lucius Maximus Gaetulicus, son of Lucius, of the tribe Voltinia, from Vienne, made as a new recruit in legion XX Valeria Victrix to Imperial Victory, All-Divine and Most Reverend, I have now fulfilled as chief centurion in legion I Italica after fifty-seven years’ service, in the consulship of Marullus and Aelianus (ad 184).158
World History
