The hundred years that followed the start of the First Punic War (264) saw the defeat and downfall of all the other great powers in the Mediterranean world. First Carthage, then Macedon and the Seleucid Empire were defeated in a series of overseas wars. Again, the increase in range, scale, and complexity altered the character of the Roman army and of the military apparatus. It was no longer a simple farmer-militia that confronted the Carthaginians in 264. As we have seen, during the conquest of Italy, Rome had begun to develop the necessary means to wage war on a grand scale. Nevertheless, the effort that was needed to emerge victorious from the wars against the major powers of the Mediterranean not only changed the Roman army, but also the Roman state.
While Carthage and the Hellenistic kingdoms relied on professional soldiers and mercenaries, the legions that faced these armies in battle consisted of soldiers who were recruited from among Rome’s citizenry. Each male citizen was liable to serve for a maximum of 16 years in the infantry. It should be noted, however, that they did not serve this term in successive years and that many citizens did not serve for the full 16 years. A Roman legion consisted of 3,000 heavy infantry and 1,200 lightly armed troops (velites). The heavy infantry was armed with a large shield and two spears that were thrown at short range, but their main weapon was the sword, which was used to thrust and to stab. The Roman heavy infantry faced battle in a formation of three lines: the first line (hastati) consisted of the youngest soldiers; the second of the soldiers in their late twenties or early thirties (the principes). The older veterans (triarii) formed the final line. The Romans did not fight in a closed formation, which made it possible for the first line to withdraw behind the next line.7 According to Polybius, the Roman lines approached the enemy with much noise and shouting (Polyb. 15.12.8). Within 30 m of the enemy, the spears were thrown in order to create further confusion within the enemy lines.8 The role of the cavalry during battle was mostly to attack the infantry formation in the flanks or in the back.9 Battles usually took several hours, but fighting was not intense for the whole duration of the engagement, much of which consisted of the maneuvering of troops. As long as the battle formations remained intact, the number of casualties was usually limited. Most men were killed when the formation dissolved and the soldiers fled, which explains the great disparity in most battles between the number of casualties on the winning and those on the losing side. Success in battle depended partly on the moral and discipline of the soldiers and their ability to hold their place in a situation that was as threatening as it was confusing. Therefore, the Romans placed the most experienced soldiers in the back of the battle formation. An important role in maintaining discipline was also played by the centurions, men of tested worth who had risen from the ranks. Each legion contained six military tribunes, who were often young men from senatorial families beginning their military and political career as officers in the legions (see also Chapter 19). The officers in the allied forces were also drawn from among the wealthiest families of Roman citizens.
Roman success against Carthage and the Hellenistic kingdoms of the East has been explained in various ways. Some have stressed the flexible nature of the Roman battle formation, which was more effective than the rigid phalanx that was still employed by the Hellenistic states.10 Polybius, who came to Rome as a hostage but soon befriended members of the leading families, was inspired by the city’s rise to write a Roman history in which he tried to explain to his fellow-Greeks the causes of Rome’s invincibility. Part of the explanation he sought in the Roman Constitution, which in his eyes ensured a stable government, part in the nature of Roman society, which he describes as obsessed by war. In his description of the Roman military system, Polybius emphasizes the Roman methods of encouraging soldiers to face danger. Those who fled or threw away their weapons were punished by death, but those who had shown exceptional courage in battle were praised by the commander in front of the entire army. Various crowns and other decorations were awarded to soldiers who had exposed themselves to danger beyond the call of duty (see also Chapter 17).
The men who receive these trophies not only enjoy great prestige in the army and soon afterwards in their homes, but they are also singled out for precedence in religious processions when they return. On these occasions nobody is allowed to wear decorations save those who have been honoured for their bravery by the consuls, and it is the custom to hang up the trophies, and to regard them as proofs and visible symbols of their valour.
So when we consider this people’s almost obsessive concern with military rewards and punishments, and the immense importance which they attach to both, it is not surprising that they emerge with brilliant success from every war in which they engage. (Polyb. 6.39 [trans. I. Scott-Kilvert])
Some have explained the militaristic nature of Roman society by the advantages that successful wars brought to each segment of society: the upper classes needed war to win fame and increase or uphold their status, while both upper and lower classes reaped the material rewards of war in the form of booty, slaves, and land.11 The military nature of Roman society is also shown by the fact that down to around 100 young Romans of prominent families served in the army for ten years before they could start a career in public office. Political and military careers were not separated: praetors and consuls not only took care of civic matters in Rome, they also commanded the Roman armies. The political system did not always elect the most talented commanders to high political offices, which not rarely resulted in disastrous defeats against more cunning generals. The idea seems to have been that members of the leading families were capable of commanding Roman armies simply because of their upbringing and virtue. Defeat was not even a serious obstacle in one’s further career: many Romans who met defeat in battle went on to hold the most prestigious posts in Rome’s political system.12 Nevertheless, victory in battle and success in war brought enormous prestige in Rome.
Winning battles was not the same, however, as winning wars. Rome lost battles against many opponents, the most famous of whom is the Carthaginian Hannibal (247/6-183), who started the Second Punic War (218-201) with an army that was better trained, more experienced, and better led than their Roman adversaries. Rome gained the upper hand in the wars with Carthage, Macedon, and the Seleucid Empire because it developed the necessary means to exploit the vast and ever increasing resources and manpower of its empire. This enabled Rome to raise and support large armies and to focus the military force of the entire Empire on its overseas adversaries.
World History
