Monthly Archives: February 2012

The Roman army started to form a new form of military ranks between the time of the late Republic and the time of Principate (753 BC to 476 AD). The Roman military was called a legion. “When recruits have been carefully selected who excel in mind and body, and after daily training for four or more months, a legion is formed by order and auspices of the invincible Emperor.” (Vegetius, page 34) In a legion, there are ten cohorts that are carefully selected by a person’s status. This includes family, honor, prestige, and money. The legion of the Roman army would fight primarily against the Germans and the Parthians. There were legions all throughout Europe and the map below are the legion camps that the Romans had settled into. (Wikipedia)

The head leader of a cohort was the legatus legionis but the second in command was the tribunus laticlavius. The laticlavius “broad-stripped tribune” was usually a younger gentleman whom was from one of the richest families in Rome and knew the legionary commander quite well (Wikipedia). The laticlavius was given the name because of the “broad purple striped tunic which contrasted the narrow stripe of the equestrian tribe.” (Maxfield)

The laticlavius was the typical rich, pretty boy who constantly asked the praefectus castrorum, the prefect, what to do or not do while he is guarding or actually on the senate. (Matyszak) If the legionis were to die in battle, the laticlavius took over the legion. (Wikipedia) However, usually the legionis did not die in battle, but was actually poisoned by a person from the cohort senate. Though the laticlavius was young and inexperienced, they were quick learners and had to take in charge quickly otherwise the cohort would not pay attention. They were trained to become commanders, and if there was a legionis before them, they were on the senate as guards and did not give a lot of orders or talk while in second command.

Works Citied

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribunus_laticlavius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion

Maxfield, Valerie http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Nuex2PW7QR0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA10&dq=tribunus+laticlavius&ots=FJVqBxAkIF&sig=XIhCrSOzotuNMFw5kwmQgF5bNto#v=onepage&q=tribunus%20laticlavius&f=false

Milnder, N.P. “Vegetius: Epitome of MilitaryScience.” Vegetius: Epitome of Military Scienc. Second RevisedEdition. Trowbridge, England: Redwood Book, 1996. Print.

Matyszak, Philip. Legionary: The Roman Soldier’s Unoffical Manual. New York, New YorkT: Thames and Hudson, 2009. 91.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Legions_camps_-_AD_80.png

Roman Currency (Wikipedia Contributors)

While there is a relative shortage of accurate information about the finances of the Imperial era, it is assumed that state expenditures of the Roman Empire were first and foremost devoted to military payments. It is estimated that these expenditures most likely accounted for half of the revenues of the Empire. Whatever these revenues may have been they were eaten up so quickly that often taxes were increased (or invented) depending on circumstances (Southern, 75-76).

For the average legionary, military life was not a life of great wealth, even though “[Roman] soldiers formed part of the rare salaried class in antiquity” (Bohec, 209). The appeal of legionary life did not lie in an opportunity to earn a large fortune, or even anything resembling affluence. Why then did so many young recruits volunteer for service under rather unappealing conditions? The answer lies in looking outside of the military: conditions of daily life were not much better. When under military service, a “[soldier] could…look forward to regular meals, pay, and free medical treatment form an army doctor” (Herz, 307). Each soldier’s level of pay was blatantly uneven and not dependent upon task difficulty or capability, but upon social status (Herz, 308).

Polybius provides the first indication of the amount of a legionary’s stipendium (pay that initially covered a six-month time period). He states that legionaries received two obols daily, centurions double, cavalrymen a whole drachma (Brunt). Polybius’s drachma is taken to mean the Roman denarius which is the equivalent of 10 asses (Brunt).

Denarii depicting various Roman Emperors (Wikipedia Contributors)

It has also been noted that the stipendium is not so much the equivalent of a modern day wage, but more a credit record to compensate for costs incurred by a legionary during the term of service, i.e. clothing, food and arms supplied by the Empire (Brunt). One example of deductions made for a soldier’s foodstuffs over the period of service indicated that “state deductions for provisions were usually higher than their cost, and that the state normally made a profit” (Herz, 311). The assumption has been made that generally, about two-thirds of a soldier’s gross income was kept back and remained under the control of the state (Herz, 311). Perhaps the most distinct example of pay deductions can be seen in a young recruit—with the necessary supply of weapons, clothing and food, a new legionary incurred a large deficit that could only be paid off after a few years of service (Herz, 314).

Although the costs of maintaining a functioning army were certainly the largest portion of the Roman budget, the political and economic benefits provided by the army’s existence cannot be translated into a financial figure. The stability and security provided by the army both internally and externally, as well as the valuable contributions to the infrastructure of the Roman Empire are astronomically important to the history of the Roman state, and “represented the largest organized and qualified work-force that was present throughout the empire” (Herz, 319). Though it was costly, the value of the Roman army was well worth the price required to sustain it.

Denarius of Marcus Aurelius (Wikipedia Contributors)

Works Cited:

Bohec, Yann Le. The Imperial Roman Army. Trans. Raphael Bate. Routledge, 2000. Print. 28 Feb. 2012.

Brunt. P. A. “Pay and Superannuation in the Roman Army.” Papers of the British School at Rome. Vol. 18. British School at Rome, 1950. Pg. 50-71. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable40301480.

Herz, Peter. “Finances and Costs of the Roman Army.” A Companion to the Roman Army. Ed. Paul Erdkamp. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470996577.ch18/pdf

Southern, Pat. The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. 28 Feb. 2012.

Wikipedia contributors. “Denarius.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 27 Feb. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.

Wikipedia contributors. “Roman currency.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 24 Feb. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.

The Roman Army did not begin as a finely tuned fighting machine, but it did develop into one.  In the beginning it mostly consisted of Roman citizens who were farmers.  Part of the reason the leaders would choose the type of man for the legion is because they were in good physical condition because the work they did was physically demanding. In the beginning men would join part-time and then the men would return home after a summer of fighting.  Under the leadership of the Roman general Marius, the army began to be more of a profession (Gill, 2012).

The recruitment of soldiers was the foundation on which the army was built upon.  The plan for their training was geared specifically for the requirements of the work which they would be expected to do.  It would take great skill and courage to be able to leap into a trench or the opponent’s line of battle and engage in the type of combat the Romans were notorious for.  The length of time that a soldier would be in training would depend on his condition, skills, and how quickly he could master the tasks that would be required of him.  It was important for the recruits to be skillfully selected, learn to use and care for arms, be in top physical condition and strong.  In addition they had to learn about every situation they may encounter in battle and how to deal with it, as well as learn to obey orders (Stout, 1921).

  According to Vegetius the new recruits should be judged according to their strength as well as their moral characture.  He could see no benefit to training a coward.  They had strict requirements such as height (between 5’10” and 6 ft. at the minimum), good eyesight, muscular build, and long fingers.  Part of the process of becoming a soldier would be giving him a tattoo with the official mark, but the man would have to prove himself before he could truly become part of the military.  The potential soldier would have to prove his mobility and strength, as well as be able to learn to use weapons and prove he had self-confidence. After he proved himself, he would receive the mark and begin to learn the “science of arms” in his daily training (Vegetius, 1996).

The Romans were known for their ability to build military training camps.  This is where the training would take place.  It really didn’t matter if the site was a permanent installation or a place to stay for the night, the Roman military was good at it.  Vegetius wrote, “one could almost say that the Roman military carried a walled town with them were ever they went.”  New recruits would be trained in the art of building these camps as well as entrenchments (Davies, Breeze, & Maxfield, 1989).

Once the soldier was placed officially in training he would have to endure a rigorous routine of training to do many things.  Examples of things that the soldiers were required to be good at are: military step, both running and in jumping, swimming in case there was no bridge to cross a river.  They also had to train with wooden swords that were heavy and shields that were made of wicker.  They were also taught to use the point and not the edge when they were in combat, this way they would do more damage to their opponents.  They were also proficient at throwing javelins and using arrows, firing stones with slings, and using lead weighted darts.  They had to learn to vault onto horses.  This was done by practicing with wooden horses.  In addition to all of the things mentioned they were expected to carry about 60 pounds of equipment while they were marching in full armor (Vegetius, 1996).

All of this rigorous training was designed to give the soldier strength, courage, and the ability to face the enemy without fear, because the soldier would know that he was superior to his enemy.

The image below is a sketch of a what a Roman soldier may have looked like when he was getting ready to face his enemy.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romeweapons/p/RomanArmy.htm

References

Davies, R., Breeze, D., & Maxfield, V. A. (1989). Service in the roman army. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gill, N. (2012). The roman army and the roman republic. Retrieved from About.com: http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romeweapons/p/RomanArmy.htm

Stout. (1921). Training soldiers for the roman army. The Classical Journal, 16(7), 423-431. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3288082

Vegetius. (1996). Epitome of military science (2 ed.). (N. Milner, Trans.) Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Meeting of Hannibal and Scipio at Zama. Adapted from Young Folks' History of Rome by Charlotte Mary Yonge. “Battle of Zama.” Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.

The first Punic War (264-241 B.C.) began as a small conflict in Sicily which quickly escalated into an all out war between Carthage and Rome (“Punic Wars”). The Romans won many of the battles, and the war eventually ended with a peace treaty that gave the Romans control of Sicily. Twenty-two years later (219 B.C.) Hannibal “attacked Saguntum in Hispania, a city allied to Rome, starting the second Punic War” (“Punic Wars”). After suffering a major defeat at Cannae, the Roman armies under the direction of Publius Cornelius Scipio (Scipio Africanus) traveled to Africa and prepared for the Battle of Zama.

From the accounts given of him, Scipio Africanus appears to have been not only a strong general, but also a capable politician in the time surrounding the battle of Zama. There was significant initial resistance to Scipio’s plan to attack the Carthaginians in their own territory by the Roman Senate. They were “persuaded by Fabius Maximus that the enterprise was far too hazardous” (“Battle of Zama”). However, Scipio, who had been elected a consul because of his recent victories against the Carthaginians, apparently had enough political savvy and support to convince the Senate to let him go, but not enough to convince them to supply him with an army of anything more than volunteers (“Battle of Zama”). Eventually he did receive the support of formal troops.

Scipio’s language during the battle of Zama also indicates political savvy. Polybius recounted that Scipio’s reply to a speech made by Hannibal at the beginning of the battle was “That neither in the Sicilian nor Iberian war were the Romans the aggressors, but the Carthaginians” and that “the gods themselves had confirmed this by giving the victory…to those who acted only in self-defense” (Polybius 15.8). This is, of course, frankly false. The first Punic War was started because of offenses on both sides, but Scipio’s statement, if recorded accurately, would have served to validate the actions of his troops and intimidate his enemies. Though it is possible that Polybius may have distorted Scipio’s language in order to strengthen the “righteous” image of the Roman army in the second Punic War, and though it is possible that Scipio himself may have believed that they Romans were completely innocent, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Scipio might have used such a tactic purposefully to his advantage.

One of the strongest indications of Scipio’s political prowess, however, came at the end of the battle. As part of the treaty to end the war after the Carthaginians had been defeated, Scipio requested various things including “a hundred hostages of their good faith, —such hostages to be selected from the young men of the country by the Roman general, and to be not younger than fourteen or older than thirty years” (Polybius 15.18). According to M. James Moscovish, “the Senate had authority to amend treaty clauses issued by its generals in the field, but in the case of Scipio’s terms with the Cartheginians…the Senate ratified them without change” (418). Though the Senate might have changed any number of terms in the treaty, they remained satisfied with Scipio’s decisions. This seems to indicate that Scipio had either enough insight into the Senate to create a treaty that supported their interests, or enough influence because of the significance of his victory that the Senate wanted to pacify him. Either way, Scipio’s political and military abilities during the battle of Zama significantly impacted the empire.

Works Cited

“Battle of Zama.” Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.

Polybius. Histories. Perseus Digital Library. Ed. Gregory R. Crane. Tufts University. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.

“Punic Wars.” Wikipedia.com. Wikipedia. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.

Muscovich, M. James. “Hostage Regulations in the Treaty of Zama.” Histora: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte. 23.4 (4^th Qtr., 1974): 417-427. JSTOR. Web. 16 Feb. 2012