Jacob- People and training of gladiators

Gladiator Schools:

While there were many gladiator schools, by far the biggest and most important ones were the ones located right there in Rome. The first, Ludus Magnus, was the biggest; holding about 2,000 gladiators. Then there is Ludus Dacicus, east of the colosseum, used to train Dacian prisoners of the Dacian wars. Third is the Ludus Gallicus; the smallest of the gladiator school and more dedicated to training more heavily armoured classes. Lastly, the Ludus Matutinus; this school was more for beast hunters and not so much for gladiators fighting each other. The word matutinus means “of the morning” where these sorts of shows would be performed.  The schools had their training ground in the middle, with their barracks and other supporting structures -such as a mess hall and a kitchen- surrounding the periphery of the training ground.

Where the Gladiators came from:

While there are many sources that suggest many different things about where the gladiators came from, there is a trend within the sources. The majority of the gladiators were criminals or slaves, but there were a few exceptions. There are accounts of volunteers who became gladiators professionally.

Employment of the gladiator schools:

The owners: Just like most corporate businesses today, the owners don’t do much except for accumulate money.

The Lanistae: The Lanistae can be assimilated to the managers of the ludus. What is interesting about the Lanistae, is that there seemed to have been a stigma with the lanistae and they were looked down upon; they were on the same ground as pimps and even the gladiators of that time.  (Talbert, Slootjes, Brice. 133 )

Medici: The medici were the doctors of the Ludus. They insured that the gladiators’ health was kept up to par. They may have been slaves or prisoners, but the gladiators competing was a source of income for the owner of the ludus. Included with the medical care that the gladiators received, they also had access to decent food to keep their energy up. One account mentions that the gladiators ate barley water mixed with beans.. (Talbert, Slootjes, Brice. 126 )

Magistri: The magistri were the gladiators’ trainers. Most of the magistri was composed from retired gladiators, mostly because after retirement from gladiating, they did not have good prospects, so they trained newer gladiators. While the magistri were the official trainers, many of the gladiators helped each other out. The more experienced ones were in charge of training the newer gladiators, despite the fact that they may have to fight each other in the ring.

Training of the Gladiators:

The gladiators were separated in different ways. The first way they were separated was by social standing. The volunteers, or the professionals, were separated from the slaves and criminals and ended up getting better treatment. The slaves and criminals though, even though it wasn’t as bad as regular prison -they had to be healthy for fighting- it wasn’t up to par to the professionals. They were also separated based off of their fighting style, and each fighting style had their own trainer. It wasn’t unusual for the gladiators to befriend their fellow adversaries, because the friends usually were the ones that made their gravestone.(Coleman)  Another point of segregation, usually the professionals went by their own name; while the slaves tended to have stage names that they used. One example is “Secundus” or “Lucky” (Talbert, Slootjes, Brice. 129)

In the arena:

Despite popular belief, there were actual rules when it came to gladiating; and it even included umpires. It wasn’t just kill your enemy, because you didn’t always have to. The gladiators were trained to fight with skill and accuracy; not necessarily to kill the enemy, but to disarm him or somehow disable him. (Talbert, Slootjes, Brice. 139)Remember, this is a show, even if it does seem like a battlefield. From there, it was decided by the crowd whether the defeated would die or be spared.

Among many things, one of the things that was harsh about the gladiating world is that you could have trained with someone, and even befriended him/her, only to be pitted against them in the arena.  (Talbert, Slootjes, Brice. 137)

Special gladiator schools were created in Rome. Capua was one of them. Agents scoured the empire looking for gladiators to recruit, as their turnover time was very short.

 

History of the Games – Garrett

The games have roots in both religious funeral rites and practices created by the people located in modern day Italy. The Etruscans of Northern Italy held gladiator battles and chariot races as sacrifices to the gods. The Romans picked up the practice later and continued to hold the games about 10-12 times a year (Pierre). It was believed in Rome that when people died their souls would travel in human blood to the afterlife. Because this was a popular belief, they would kill slaves or prisoners of war at important funerals. At Julius Brutus’s funeral in 264 BC his family had 3 pairs of slaves fight each other to the death (ushitory.org). Other wealthy families followed this example and began having these fights as well to prove their wealth. People passing by would come watch these fights as well and someone eventually had the idea to put out chairs and charge people to come watch the fight. The funeral of P. Licinius Crassus 120 gladiators fought and his funeral took place over 3 days and ended with a massive banquet in his honor (Thomassen). This practice eventually changed from its religious routes to more of a political event to win the favor of the mob.

The games were originally created and funded to show one’s wealth at a funeral and ensure safe passage into the afterlife. This quickly changed once they realised that they could win the hearts of the poor and desolate masses by putting on these massive spectacles for free. Once the aristocrats realized that the games would slowly increase in size to become massive, almost unbelievable spectacles of bloodsport.

As with most entertainment industries the most important thing is to be bigger and better than your competition so each times gladiator games were put on they had to be better than the last. The first advancement in scope came when aristocrats began constructing wooden arenas filled with sand. Previously they had fought either out in the open or in a roped off area. With the sand there to absorb the blood that was spilled the games could be held more often and for longer periods of time. This increase in frequency and duration then allowed gladiators to become a big business. Gambling on the outcome of gladiatorial games became a massive industry with gladiators creating troupes or familia, with managers that would decide where and when they would fight. Schools that recruited slaves, criminals, and prisoners of war in order to teach them combat techniques. Some elite romans even owned their own troupes of gladiators. formed. This growth, backed by the most elite in Rome, lead to the games becoming massive spectacles lasting months at a time at the creation of dedicated arenas rather than improvised grounds.

But private citizens owning sometimes hundreds of well trained warriors was something that could not be ignored by the state. When the Roman Republic fell the Roman empire and the Senate assumed complete control over all gladiators. They also gave Roman courts the ability to sentence criminals to participate in the games. With the ever increase in popularity, amphitheatres made of stone were built to house the games. The first of these arenas was called the Amphitheater of Statilius Taurus and was built in 29 BC with the most famous of these, the Roman Colosseum being built in 80AD (Thomassen).

The history of using animals in the arena also have roots in funerals as well, with wealthy people would stock up native creatures to parade around in honor of the dead. They would teach these animals tricks as well as kill them in staged hunts called venationes. Wild animals first came into the games when elephants captured during the first punic war were taken the games in 252 B.C (ushitory.org). This really expanded however with the wealth figures of Pompey, Crassus, and Julius Caesar bringing in animals from Africa such as crocodiles, hippopotami, tigers, lions ,leopards, and more. Trajan’s games is famous for being the largest show ever put on. It lasted form 79-81 A.D and was held to celebrate his victory over the Dacians (ushitory.org). The games lasted 120-123 days and consisted of over 9,000 gladiators and about 11,000 animals (ushitory.org).These animal hunts were so popular that many Roman Emperors actually fought in these gladiatorial animal hunts in order to earn the honor that was afforded to to the coliseums greatest champions. Emperor Commodus is the biggest example of this as he is said to have participated in over 700 gladiatorial fights (Pierre).

Eventually the attitude towards the games shifted dramatically. The rise of Christianity lead to a feeling of the games being wrong. Eventually the Emperor Honorius ended the Gladiatorial games after an Egyptian monk named Telemachus was killed after he plead to end the games. Honorius decreed the end of the games officially in 399 AD ushitory.org). Although the gladiator games were abolished at this time the last known gladiator fight in the city of Rome took place on January 1 404 AD ushitory.org). A bloodsport spectacle that once once brought emperors and nobles the people’s favor was now doing the opposite, and so it disappeared into history.

 

Emma- Colosseum 

Originally called the Flavian Amphitheater, the Colosseum could hold between 50,000 and 80,000 people, probably averaging to about 65,000 spectators per event. It was used for about 500 years, and it is estimated that over 400,000 people died there. Construction began in 70 AD and it was finished in 10 years, followed by a 100 day streak of daily events to celebrate the emperor, the city, and the arena. Unlike other amphitheatres carved out of hillsides, the Colosseum is a freestanding concrete and stone structure. The land it was built on was originally a lake, so drains were built to clear the area, and the arena itself would have needed to have extensive architecture planning done before construction. Since its days of fame, the Colosseum has been used for several things, including a Christian shrine, a quarry, and a source for building materials. It was also partially destroyed by an earthquake in the 1300s. There were over 250 arenas built in this time, but this was the largest of them.

There were 76 entrance gates labeled with roman numerals, much how modern stadiums are set up. Spectators were packed in like sardines, and though some scholars guess that the people were sat according to their rank, more than likely everyone just packed in as tight as they could. The Colosseum was renovated a few times, and underground tunnels, sun and rain shades, and other amenities were installed. Some evidence of latrines and even water fountains has been found. Eventually canvas shades mounted on masts that extended from top of the arena were installed, which could be rolled out to protect spectators from the hot sun and sometimes rain. The floor of the arena was covered in sand to help absorb the spilt blood of combatants. The arena was used for the famous gladiator battles but also for chariot racing, naval battles, public executions, and even plays. There is no physical evidence that the naval battles happened, but there are a few ancient records that report the Colosseum being flooded and used to recreate famous battles at sea. Underground, there were tunnels, cages for animals, holding areas for upcoming gladiators, and machinery like trap doors. This underground area was probably not present during the supposed naval recreations.

Overall, the Colosseum was a hugely successful and impressive work of art that displays Rome’s power and position at the time. It was planned out carefully, and funds were controlled to ensure the best and fastest construction. Even over a thousand years past its last use, the Colosseum is still a huge attraction today, even if you now have to pay for tickets, and has been named one of the 7 Wonders of the World.

 

“Munera” The Games– Alaina

Before the games could begin, advertising had to be done to inform spectators of date, venue, editor, fighters, scheduled executions, and added perks for those in attendance; which may include information on food, drink, shade awnings, and on some occasions, “door prizes”. More detailed programs could be obtained the day of, and provided additional information about the matchups and fighting styles of the gladiators. The night before the event a banquet would be held as a sort of “last meal”. It was a chance for the gladiators to sort out their affairs as well as bring more publicity to the event.

The munera would begin with something similar to an “opening ceremonies”. A pompa, or procession, would enter the arena and led by lictors (who represented the power of the magistrate editor over life and death), and were then followed by trumpet fanfare, images of the gods (who were brought to “watch” the spectacle), a scribe, and men carrying in the palm branches to be awarded to winners. The magistrate editor would then enter with the weapons and armour to be used, and the gladiators entered last.

The exact order of the munera would differ among individual events, but would generally open with sham fights, which were fought with wooden or dummy weapons as a sort of warm-up. The munus could also be opened with animal spectacles, such as the ones Seneca praised involving trainers and handlers putting their heads in lions’ mouths or getting elephants to perform tricks like kneeling and walking on ropes. He also recalled wild animals fighting each other and people; with events in single combat being fought by bestiarii (beast-fighters), and groups of hunters demonstrating their skill in venationes, or “beast hunts”.

The next stage was called the ludi meridiani, which featured a wide range of possible content. It often featured the execution of noxii (condemned prisoners), which was sometimes done through fatal re-enactments of Greek or Roman myths. The audience, as well as the gladiators were not as enthralled with these events as they denied the noxii the dignity associated with a fair fight. Comedy fights, which had the potential to be lethal, would be performed in this stage of the munus as well.

By far the most popular event were the scheduled fights between gladiators. These were also the most expensive events, owing to the need for highly trained fighters who possessed both the skill in combat and showmanship needed to create a successful show. There were four main classes of gladiators: the Samnite (named for the warriors the Romans had defeated early on in the Republic) were the most heavily armored. They carried a sword or lance, a large shield, and wore armour on his sword arm and opposing leg. The second class were the Thracian gladiators, who carried a short curved sword called a sica and a small shield for deflecting blows.The Myrmillo gladiator (sometimes called “the fisherman”) was armed in a Gallic style and was easily idenfied by the crest in the shape of a fish on his helmet. The last class, the Retiarius, wore only a padded shoulder piece for armour and carried a heavy net and a trident.

In terms of the actual combat, retired gladiators often served as “referees”, and music was played during the match to enhance the experience. The match was over when a gladiator defeated his opponent, which was done when his opponent surrendered by raising a finger or was killed. The victor was awarded a palm branch, but a laurel crown and additional money from the audience could be awarded for an outstanding performance, and emancipation granted to those who fought an especially spectacular performance.

If a gladiator surrendered, it was up to the editor to determine whether he lived or not; a decision that was usually made based on the audience’s collective decision, and was marked by the infamous thumbs up or down gesture. In the later years of the munera, the audience favored missio (not killing the gladiator) for various reasons, some being the shortage of gladiators or the rise of Christianity and decrease in bloodthirst.

In the unfortunate event a gladiator was denied missio, he was killed by his opponent, usually by a well-placed blow to the neck, but that was only if he had already earned the right to a quick death, that is. If he died honorably (without begging for mercy or crying out), he would be removed to the morgue in a dignified manner, stripped of his armour, and his throat would be cut to ensure he was in fact dead. However, if he did not die with honor, his corpse would be subjected to a more humilating fate, which involved area officials dressed as Dis Pater, the god of the underworld, and Mercury who would beat the body with a mallet and “test” for signs of life with some sort of “heated wand”, respectively. The body would then be dragged out of the area and would be denied proper funeral rites and memorial; effectively condemning his manes (shade) to wander as a restless lemur forever.

 

Sources:

Cagniart, Pierre. “The Philosopher and the Gladiator.” The Classical World, vol. 93, no. 6, 2000, pp. 607–618. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4352467.

Cartwright, Mark. “Roman Gladiator”. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Ancient History Encyclopedia, 3 May 2018. https://www.ancient.eu/gladiator/. Web. Accessed 22 October 2018.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Gladiator”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 16 March 2018. https://www.britannica.com/sports/gladiator. Web. Accessed 22 October 2018.

Wikipedia contributors. “Gladiator.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2 Oct. 2018. Web. 22 Oct. 2018.

Cartwright, Mark. “Roman Gladiator.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. 2018. https://www.ancient.eu/gladiator/

“Capua.” Livius.org. 2018. www.livius.org/articles/place/capua/

Talbert, Richard. Slootjes, Danielle. Brice, Lee. “Aspects of Ancient Institutions and Geography: Studies in HOnor of Richard J.A. Talbert” Impact of Empire: Roman Empire, C. 200 B.C.-A.D. 476. Volume 19. EBSCOhost. 2015. https://web-b-ebscohost-com.hal.weber.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=27e32f3d-1548-4eea-85f8-3907f258fc29%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=e025xna&AN=919102

The Ludus Originating

“About Rome.” BB Roma. 2012. http://www.bb-roma.com/en/blog/about-rome/ludus-magnus-the-gym-of-the-roman-gladiators.html

Coleman, Kathleen. “Gladiators: Heroes of the Roman Amphitheatre.” BBC- Ancient History in Depth: Gladiators. 2012. https://courseweb.hopkinsschools.org/pluginfile.php/130911/mod_resource/content/0/World_Studies/Gladiators.pdf

“Ludus Dacicus.” Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_Dacicus

“Rome, Ludus Magnus.” Livius. http://www.livius.org/articles/place/rome/rome-photos/rome-ludus-magnus/?

“Gladiator Schools in Rome” http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/gladiators/gladiator-schools-in-rome.htm

ushistory.org. Ancient Civilizations Online Textbook. Gladiators, Chariots, and the Roman Games. Web. 21 10 2018 Accessed.

Thomassen, Lasse. “‘Gladiator,” Violence, and the Founding of a Republic.” PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 42, no. 1, 2009, pp. 145–148. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20452389.

Pierre Cagniart. “The Philosopher and the Gladiator.” The Classical World, vol. 93, no. 6, 2000, pp. 607–618. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4352467.

Jackson, Ralph. “The Chester Gladiator Rediscovered.” Britannia, vol. 14, 1983, pp. 87–95. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/526342.

BOWER, BRUCE. “Roman Gladiator School Digitally Rebuilt.” Science News, vol. 185, no. 8, 2014, pp. 14–14. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24366006.

History.com Editors. “Colosseum .” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009, www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/colosseum.

“Top Attractions.” Rome by CIVITATIS, www.rome.net/colosseum.

Hopkins, Keith. “History – The Colosseum: Emblem of Rome.” BBC, BBC, 22 Mar. 2011, www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/colosseum_01.shtml.

Nikola Simonovski. “Ancient Romans Flooded the Colosseum to Re-Create Famous Naval Battles for Thousands to See.” The Vintage News, 13 Mar. 2018, www.thevintagenews.com/2018/03/13/colosseum-naval-battles-2/.

 

 

Hadrian: Buildings, Public Works, and Administration

 

Hadrian’s rule of Rome is best characterized by his numerous buildings and similar establishments. It is important to recognize the effects Hadrian’s works had on Rome’s legacy and reputation as well as the effects on his citizens’ lives.

Hadrian

Looking retrospectively upon his actions, Hadrian was deeply invested in improving the living quality of Rome for its citizens. Two minor but effective ways of accomplishing this were by sanctioning and reducing wheeled traffic in the city and by serving harsher punishments to those caught burying dead bodies within city limits (Boatwright 26). These steps would contribute to a cleaner and more appreciated city. A more direct service to his citizens was Hadrian’s increase of Rome’s borders to include land that was previously uninhabitable due to flooding. Through the creation of a dike, the land was made safe and habitable, and became a significant area for housing (Boatwright 24). Another benefit to Roman citizens was the creation of jobs for tens of thousands. Large numbers of workers were needed for Hadrian’s projects; skilled and unskilled workers alike were needed (Boatwright 20). Examples of these projects are the development of shrines, temples, baths, and theatres (Boatwright 7).

Map of Rome

Each of these things contributed to a greater Roman identity for citizens. Between the swell of new buildings and public works as well as the active presence and power of the Roman senate and other princeps, citizens of Rome saw their city as a beacon of strength and unstoppable improvement (Boatwright 7). A greater Roman identity would have benefited the republic in that citizens would be more supportive of their officials and proud of their community. Hadrian was well aware of these effects. In fact, many of Hadrian’s buildings arguably serve two purposes: their literal purpose and their perceived statement of status or power. For example, the purpose of the Pantheon has been debated, but it can be agreed that aside from just being a structure of religious importance, it is a uniquely Roman accomplishment. It was an emblem of Roman identity and potential (Joost-Gaugier 21).

Another point of interest is Hadrian’s buildings themselves. Hadrian, famously enamored with the culture, drew much of his inspiration from the Greeks. This can be seen in his classically Greek yet Roman reinventions of architecture (Somers). The majority of the most well known ancient Roman buildings were built under Hadrian’s reign, such as the Pantheon, the Temple of Venus and Roma, and the Mausoleum (Boatwright 5). Unlike the buildings commissioned by Trajan before him, Hadrian’s buildings lacked lavish decorations and detailing. Rather, these buildings compensated with their sheer size and scale (Boatwright 21). A contributing factor to this feat was the development of efficient and reliable concrete, which opened the doors to buildings previously impossible (Wikipedia).

 

The Roman Pantheon

These buildings also serve as important cooperations between the senate and the emperor. As the senate was chiefly responsible for religious matters, the creation of religious buildings required agreement between the two powers. In fact, most of the identified buildings from Hadrian’s time are religious, which paints the relationships between Hadrian and Rome’s senate in a positive light (Boatwright 29).

 

Works Cited

Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.

“Concrete.” Wikipedia. Last modified October 16, 2018.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete.

“Hadrian.” Wikipedia. Last modified October 17, 2018. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian. Joost-Gaugier, Christiane L.

“The Iconography of Sacred Space: A Suggested Reading of the Meaning of the Roman Pantheon.” Artibus Et Historiae, Last modified January 1, 1998. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1483585?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=legacy&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?prq=hadrian&Query=legacy&wc=on&fc=off&swp=on&so=rel&acc=on&hp=25&refreqid=search:ada5f9323d46fb65d5a9b5bf47913833&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.

Mark, Joshua J. “Hadrian.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified October 21, 2018. https://www.ancient.eu/hadrian/.

Granger. “Roman Empire: Map Of Rome by Granger.” Fine Art America. Accessed October 21, 2018. https://fineartamerica.com/featured/roman-empire-map-of-rome-granger.html.

Somers. “Hadrian’s Villa A Roman Masterpiece.” Washington.edu, Last modified October 4, 2004. https://depts.washington.edu/hrome/Authors/somers/Nososureyets/pub_zbarticle_view_printable.html.

“The Roman Pantheon.” The Roman Pantheon – Crystalinks. Accessed October 21, 2018. http://www.crystalinks.com/romepantheon.html.

 

aganippe

 

Hadrian’s Public Works

Hadrian had an interest in architecture even before he became emperor. Unlike Trajan before him, Hadrian was unable to create a military legacy, and left an impact on Roman history through public works instead. Hadrian used his public improvement projects in Rome and throughout the empire to unite his people, giving them a sense of common identity.

The Pantheon is Hadrian’s most well-known architectural achievement. It is considered by many to be the pinnacle of Roman construction ability, largely due to the use of concrete in its design. The Pantheon’s 43.3-meter-wide dome remains the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the world even today. The original Pantheon was built by Marcus Agrippa after 27 BC but was burned down around AD 80. Hadrian completely rebuilt it into the building we know today. Cultural impacts of the Pantheon and its revolutionary architecture can be seen across the world, from the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople to the Basilica of St. Peter in 15^th century Rome, which was partly designed by Michelangelo after close study of the Pantheon.

Through his extensive building and public works projects, Hadrian was able to secure his legacy as emperor, as well as strengthening the empire for his successors. In order to ensure a smooth transition of power after his death, Hadrian built himself a tomb in the center of Rome modeled after that of Augustus’s mausoleum nearby. This action was seen as a bold political statement, highlighting Hadrian’s desire to establish a dynasty.

 

 

 

Works Cited

“Hadrian–Life and Legacy.” British Museum. 2017. Accessed October 20, 2018. http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/themes/leaders_and_rulers/hadrian/life_and_legacy.aspx.

“The Pantheon.” Honors Program in Rome. September 8, 2004. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://depts.washington.edu/hrome/Authors/asc1/ThePantheon/pub_zbarticle_view_printable.html.

Gill, N. S. “The Roman Emperor Hadrian.” ThoughtCo. August 14, 2018. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://www.thoughtco.com/hadrian-roman-emperor-118894.

artemisia189

 

Religion in the time of Hadrian

The emperor Hadrian seems to have had a rather eclectic view of spirituality.  He favored the traditions of Hellenism, with a flair for Egyptian mythology, and a sprinkling of other religions of the day.  He constructed temples to the Greek and Roman gods, deified Antinous by comparing him to Osiris, and curbed anti-Christian sentiments by instructing governors to investigate claims against Christians and punish those who made false accusations.

Hadrian himself is difficult to classify into just one religion.  (Walton, 165) He had at least a passing knowledge of most of the sects and cults of his time, and it would stand to reason that he had a particular fascination for eastern religions, given his time spent in that region.

Hadrian desired to rebuild many cities that had been destroyed in previous conflicts, including Jerusalem.  This, however, enraged the Jewish populace — who believed that it was an insult for anyone other than their people to rebuild their holy city and temple, and ended in the Bar Kokhba revolt. (Rénan, 501)  This bloody conflict put down further Jewish uprisings.  (Goodman, 182)

The Hellenistic religions during Hadrian flourished.  New temples to the gods were erected, and nothing controversial happened between people of those beliefs. (Religious Activities, Wiki)

Christians, who practiced their religion quietly so as not to provoke enemy persecution, benefitted from Hadrian’s policies.  Hadrian allowed their religious practices so long as Christians did not object to paying homage to the many Roman gods.  Only if they broke other laws were Christians punished. (Religious Activities, Wiki)  Hadrian had knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, and would have built a temple to him if not for the admonishment of the oracle at the time, who warned that if he built that temple, the other temples would fall into disuse and it would be the end of those other religions. (Rénan, 508)

The death of his boy-lover Antinous began a new cult that was spread by Hadrian far beyond the Nile, where Antinous likely drowned.  Hadrian deified the young man, and he became known as Osiris-Antinous.  A city was established near the place of this death, called Antinopolis, which also served as a place that connected the Egyptian culture with Greco-Roman culture.  (Antinous, Wiki)

These religions would have translated from the population as a whole into the military ranks.  Though, for many soldiers, the Hellenistic cults would have been the most popular, given their high favor by emperor Hadrian.  There would have likely been a small group of Christians and other religions among the soldiers as well.

In conclusion, Hadrian’s rule was largely peaceful, with many benefits to the various religious groups — with the notable exception of the Jews, whose uprising was perhaps the most violent event in Hadrian’s reign.

 

Sources Cited:

Goodman, Martin. “Trajan and the Origins of Roman Hostility to the Jews.” Past & Present, no. 182 (2004): 3-29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600803.

Rénan, Ernest. “The Emperor Hadrian and Christianity.” The North American Review 127, no. 265 (1878): 492-508. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25100698.

Walton, Francis R. “Religious Thought in the Age of Hadrian.” Numen 4, no. 3 (1957): 165-70. doi:10.2307/3269342.

“Antinous.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinous

“Hadrian: Religious Activities.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian#Religious_activities

iamcamalot

 

The Law Under Hadrian

When Hadrian became emperor, he sought to organize the government more efficiently. During his reign he sought to codify roman law. In other words, he wanted the law written down and set in stone with little room for personal interpretation. He made his legal advisors into a permanent office. The central government became very strong and often helped the upper classes more than the lower. Punishments for higher classed citizens were much more forgiving than those for the lower class. He encouraged political figures to behave well and dress nicely.

While emperor he implemented the Praetor’s Edict or Perpetual Edict. A praetor “was the magistrate charged with the administration of justice” (Touri). They made sure the law was being upheld and made sure proper legal action was taking place. At the beginning of each year, praetors would publish their edict and all legal procedures listed within. As the year continued, changes and additions may happen. When legal action needed to take place, they could refer to the edict to determine what the outcome should be. If they were ever presented a case they hadn’t dealt with in the past, they could work the case out and add to the edict.

The Perpetual Edict would be very beneficial in many ways. It prevented the law from being left to interpretation. Rather than every single legal issue needing to be brought before the emperor or praetor, smaller issues could be dealt with by referring to the edict. If anybody attempted to find a way around the law, the edict could adapt to cover their offenses.

With most praetors, their edict would rarely change from year to year (Johnston). The idea of the perpetual edict was not new to Hadrian’s time, though he was the first emperor to make it official. There are also very few sources that reference the perpetual edict and it is difficult to find exact dates for when they were published. When referring to Hadrian’s perpetual edict, there is uncertainty and vagueness associated. It is possible that modern ideas have influenced what has been said about the government of ancient Rome and it is even possible the edict didn’t exist until after Hadrian’s time.

 

 

Sources:

Watson, Alan. “The Development of the Praetor’s Edict.” The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 60, 1970, pp. 105–119. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/299417.

Dr Kaius Tuori (2006) Hadrian’s Perpetual Edict: Ancient Sources and Modern Ideals in the Making of a Historical Tradition, The Journal of Legal History, 27:3, 219-237, DOI: 10.1080/01440360601041076

Johnston, David. Roman Law in Context. Cambridge University Press, 1999. EBSCOhost, hal.weber.edu/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.hal.weber.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e025xna&AN=54486&site=ehost-live.

 

wingedhussar420

 

The Military under Hadrian

What made the legions (and auxilia and such) so appealing compared to other professions?

 

Significant Non-Military Occupations:

• Construction
• Mining
• Farming
• Trade
• Government Positions

 

Benefits of the Legions (and Auxilia and such):

• Legion:
  • A well established and secure pension at the end of service (worth about 14 years of income).
    • A lesser pension is given if you are misso causaria (this depends on your length of service.
  • Opportunities to travel, meet new people, and receive training in some professional skills (and lots of training in construction and ditch digging).
  • Potential for loot if you are actually involved in and survive a successful campaign.
  • More if you’re a centurion or higher officer, including potential advancement, though your fancier garb will put you in greater danger in the event of an actual battle.
• Auxilia and such:
  • Potential to become a Roman citizen after service.
  • A pension, though a lesser one when compared to that of a Legionnaire.
  • In the navy, a slave can serve and potentially be freed
  • Again, travel and receive professional experience

 

Pros and Cons of Other Occupations:

• Construction: much of the work you might like to do is already done by the legions. A traveling army needs roads, so if no such convenience exists it must be built. However, in the empire proper this is a valid occupation, if you can do the work for less than a slave.
• Mining, Quarrying, etc.: Genuinely a valid career path, though like construction it’s hard to be more affordable than slave labor. As Hadrian downsized the empire and largely ceased conquesting however, competition with slave labor went down as slaves became less plentiful and more expensive.
• Farming: To put it simply, land is expensive. Also, there are many parts of the world that are more agriculturally productive than Rome (much of southern Asia, for example). As a result, foreign imports tend to be less expensive for many products than their domestically produced equivalents.
• Trade: This is, again, a decent alternative. Assuming you live somewhere along a major trade route or on the coastline, you will likely be able to make a decent living. However, like modern entrepreneurship, getting into the business and getting established is as hard as ever.
• Government/Public Service Positions: There are obviously a lot of these in the world’s greatest empire. However, there are a few major hurdles to overcome. Among other things, you need some sort of patron to obtain a good position. Also…public service really isn’t an alternative to military service, as most civil offices are reached only after service as an officer in the Roman Army (a position which one also requires a patron to obtain).
• In general, all of these alternatives have the advantage of significantly lower chances of being cut to pieces, shot, trampled, or otherwise brutally killed. And, with the exception of construction, you will also spend less time digging trenches than the average legionary by a significant amount.

 

Works Cited:

Rodgers, Nigel (2006). Roman Empire. Dodge, Hazel. London: Lorenz Books.

 

“Ancient Rome.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome#Economy (21 October, 2018).

Matyszak, Philip. Legionary: The Roman Soldier’s (Unofficial) Manual. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2009.

caltrop101

Introduction:

Alexander the Great was one of history’s greatest military leaders. He established the largest empire in the ancient world, and led an army so loyal they would fight to their deaths for him. His influence on Greek and Asian culture was intense enough to create the Hellenistic Period at his death. Though he died before his dream of conquering the world was completed, he is remembered as one of the most skilled, ruthless, tactical, and intelligent rulers in the ancient world.

The Greek sculptor Lysippus was Alexander’s “official” portrait artist during his reign. The Azara Herm is a Roman copy of a bust that Lysippus made of Alexander. The copy is not exactly like the original, but is generally regarded as the most accurate representation we have of Alexander.

Alexander III was born to King Philip II in Macedonia in 356 BCE. Legend says his father was Zeus, but Alexander adopted his Philip’s dream of conquering the Persian Empire. Philip was skilled in military tactics and made Macedonia a mighty and formidable force.

Alexander had displayed his courage by the age of 12, and when he was 13 Philip called on Aristotle to tutor Alexander. Aristotle helped Alexander find an interest in literature, philosophy, and science. He was 16 when Philip went to battle and left Alexander in charge of Macedonia. At 18 he led a cavalry into battle, decimating a previously unbeatable army, and proving his bravery and militaristic vigor.

When Philip was assassinated in 336 BCE, Alexander claimed the throne and killed other challengers before anyone could overthrow him. He was just 20 years old. Alexander followed in his father’s footsteps and sought to dominate the known world, starting with the Persian Empire. He was a brilliant and ruthless military leader, and claimed the Persian Empire after the Persian king Darius was killed. He also conquered Egypt and founded Alexandria. Alexander adopted Persian customs and ordered a few of his generals to be killed, paranoid that someone would try to overthrow him.

 

After conquering Persia, Alexander continued on his goal to conquer the world. The Greeks at this time only thought it reached to the eastern end of India, near Pakistan, so his “world” was much smaller than ours. They knew nothing of China, the Indian subcontinent, or any of the other eastern lands. He led an army of troops and supporters into India. By the time they had reached the Hyphasis River his army was too weary to continue, and they mutinied until Alexander agreed to retreat back to Persia.

The scale of the wars he fought and his undefeated status gives Alexander a reputation of being one of the most successful commanders of all time. By the time he died he had conquered most of the known world at the time. After claiming the throne to Macedonia upon his father’s death, he invaded Persia and overthrew the Persian king Darius III. He continued on to conquer Syria, Phoenicia, Egypt, among others, and extended his empire as far as Punjab, India. He had made plans to expand into the Arabian Peninsula, but those plans were never seen through because of his death at age 32, which plunged his empire into civil war. He died either from malaria, natural causes, or poison. He had named no heir, and his death unraveled his massive empire, though many of the conquered lands retained his influence, and some still do.

Indian Conquest:

Alexander the Great started his conquest of India in 327 BCE, after he conquered Persia.

Alexander’s army was composed of Macedonians, Greek mercenaries, and an increasing number of Asian soldiers. As his army became less Macedonian, Alexander had to incorporate new rituals from the east. While the Macedonians accepted the introduction of Persian garments, they flatly refused the practice of proskynesis, a Persian court ritual, since many of the actions and gestures involved were what they associated with the cult of the gods.

Alexander had sent various ambassadors to the tribes of India to demand submission. Those who didn’t submit got attacked. After crossing the Hindu Kush, Alexander split his army in half. The first part of the army -under the command of Perdiccus and Hyphaestion- was sent to the Indus river to build a bridge for the army to cross. The other half of the army was sent with Alexander to conquer the neighboring tribes that did not submit to Alexander (Possibly to secure a supply chain for his army).  you see, the problem with marching across a continent with thousands of people is that you need access to food water, and other supplies. This is especially true if you also want to conquer the continent you’re walking through. The farther that you get from your own land, the harder it is going to be to get the supplies that you

need to continue. This is where having supply chains becomes extremely important.

A well functioning supply chain is essential for an extended campaign full of siege warfare. The army itself could only march up to 10 days at a time once they left a port with access to the sea. Typically a marching army would be followed by their spouses, servents, and wagons. Alexander on the other hand decided to maximize his armies speed and flexibility by taking none of these with him. He instead followed routes that would allow him access to rivers that could carry tons of supplies compared to the around 200 carried by beasts of burden (Mieghem 42). Along the way some cities would and tribes would surrender before his arrival allowing him to send messengers ahead, create the town into a depot for supplies, and acquire supplies for his army as soon as he arrived. These supplies were mainly acquired from the local terrain but were also shipped in using water routes. Using these methods of traveling light, having frequent and easy access to supplies, and acquiring resources locally allowed him to have supplies where and when he needed them.

The battles fought in the valleys were fierce, but none were quite as merciless as  that with the Aspasioi at the fort of Massaga. After the Chieftain of Massaga fell in battle, his mother, Cleophis, assumed command of the military. Her determination to defend her homeland to the death inspired the all of the local women to also join in the fight.

In 326 B.C.E,  fighting under Cleophus,  Massaga gives Alexander resistance and was bent on defeating Alexander’s army. So, Alexander lured them outside of their fort by attacking just outside the fort. Once more Indians came to reinforce themselves, Alexander “retreated” as to lure the Indians further and further out of their fort. Once Alexander had done this, he turned his army around and chased them back to Massaga, killing many of them. Alexander then constructed siege towers and bridges to storm the wall. Before Alexander was successful with this, the Indians called a truce, asking to join Alexander’s army instead. However, that night, the Indians attempted to desert the army. Alexander countered this by massacring them, then burned Massaga to the ground.

It is thought that Massaga is near the modern day town of Chakdara, near Churchill’s Picket. It is also notable to mention that Alexander’s ankle was severely injured during the siege of Massaga.

Going further into India (still in 326 B.C.E), Alexander captured the fort, Ora, where he employed the same tactic of total warfare from Massaga. After hearing this, many Assakenians fled North to a high fortress called Aornos. This fortress was famously uncapturable by even the mighty hero Hercules.Also, another local legend claimed that another local deity, Krishna, was not able to capture Aornos either. This likely spurred Alexander on because he was known for liking too claim deity. The problem was that traditional siege warfare is conducted with the purpose of weakening the occupants of a city by cutting off their supply chains and essentially breaking spirits due to lack of food and the eternal threat of attack (Louis 130) . This would either allow you to capture the city with little to no casualties after fighting a weakened opposing force or possibly even forcing your foe to surrender

Without any conflict. This is, of course, a very good method of taking an isolated city because it’s only a matter of time before they run out of supplies and all you have to do is wait and watch them wither away. But this wasn’t the case with Aornos. The “Rock of Aornos” -or more commonly known as Mt. Pir Sarai- was 25 miles in circumference and 8,000 feet high with only one path carved from the rock. This of course makes it easier to block their supplies, but it also makes it harder to attack and in this case the positive of cutting off supplies doesn’t apply. The Rock had fresh water springs and arable land on top giving the people on the rock a near limitless supply of food and water, allowing them to stay for a near infinite amount of time. So the question was, how could you capture the rock that even Hercules wasn’t able to?

Alexander, unlike Hercules, had help from the locals. He was informed that there was a weak spot where troops could be sent to create a forward position and begin his attack from a nearby mountainous ridge. He sent Ptolemy, one of his generals, to take the position with a smaller group and signal Alexander that he could bring his forces to join him after marching his troops up the main path. In the meantime, Alexander used his local connections to being stockpiling supplies of his own in preparation for an extended siege. Once the signal was given and Alexander eventually met up with Ptolemy they had the problem of trying to cross the gap between the forward position and Aornos itself. Alexander had the idea to essentially build a bridge over to the other side. The forces of Alexander cut down the nearby trees and create wooden stakes that were then used as a framework for an earthen mount looking toward Aornos. From this mound he began his assault using archers and catapults.

These catapults would have either been built near the earth mound or would have previously been built before joining forces because siege equipment was still in its earliest form, it was hard to build, hard to repair, and hard to transport (Hacker 37).It was also much different from the more commonly thought of medieval catapult. Instead of throwing one large rock a long distance, it would instead propel smaller stones and arrows at high velocities in an attempt to pierce any armor enemy soldiers may have had. Once they had this offensive mound created they continued building it up further in order to build a bridge closer to the enemy encampment. This method is somewhat similar to Alexander’s strategy at the siege of Tyre in 332 BC where he built a land bridge to an isolated island(Lagasse). With the catapults and archers providing cover for the builders, the enemies quickly surrendered upon seeing the progress. Alexander accepted their surrender, but then killed many of the Indians as they retreated. That is how Alexander the great conquered The Rock of Aornos.

After Aornos, Alexander reunites his army at a town called Hun to cross the Indus river. (this is still 326 B.C.E)  They crossed by building a bridge, which was constructed by Hephaestion. Hephaestion was sent earlier by Alexander to subdue the lands before Alexander had gotten there. The bridge was thought to be constructed of boats that were linked together spanning about 1500 feet across. Once they reunited, the army crossed and headed towards Taxila.

Once at Taxila the Macedonians were confronted by Omphis, the local king of Taxila, and his army. The Macedonians prepared for battle, thinking that they were going to have to fight through Taxila too. Omphis came up to Alexander and Alexander had asked Omphis why he had mobilized his entire force if he wasn’t going to attack. Omphis then said that he was offering his army for Alexander’s disposal. This friendly gesture prompted Alexander to make Omphis king of Taxila. The common thought on why Omphis did this is he recognized that Alexander was powerful, so being his ally, he could possibly further expand his power into other territory under the wing of Alexander.

In the summer of 326 B.C.E, Alexander continues his journey of conquest; towards the Hydaspes river -more commonly known as the Jhelum river-. The only thing that stops him is King Porus. Hearing that Porus was on the other side of the river waiting for him, Alexander orders that the boats used to cross the Indus river to be disassembled and to be reassembled at the Hydaspes river.

King Porus, on the other side of the river, has set up pickets (little groups of troops) to border the shore of the Hydaspes river to discourage any attempt of Alexander trying to cross. What King Porus failed to realize though, is that Alexander came well prepared and Alexander’s army camped on the other side of the river throughout the winter.

Alexander really only had two options: wait for the waters height to drop in the winter, or cross right then and there. Although Alexander had the supplies to last until winter, he decided that he needed to cross this river as soon as possible and continue his conquest; but he would have to do so as secretly as possible. Alexander began marching his army up and down the river every day making an extremely large scene as if he were attempting to cross the river. Hydaspes would then mobilize his army to mirror the actions of Alexander’s in case they attempted a crossing. This strategy was successful in two ways. King Porus’ army was inclined to parallel Alexander’s army to insure that they would not attempt a crossing. After a while, however, they got a false sense of security because throughout those few nights, Alexander never crossed so it was (poorly) assumed that Alexander wouldn’t dare cross any of the other nights either. The second advantage to this strategy is it gave Alexander ideas on where it would be most beneficial to cross. Alexander, after a few nights, had decided that the best place to cross would be a heavily wooded island 18 miles upstream from where they were camping.

At the night of their crossing, (it is suspected that this was in July of 326 B.C.E) it was instructed that one of Alexander’s general, Craterus, would stay behind with his portion of the army and only attempt to cross the river if Porus had moved upstream to meet Alexander and there was a small force left behind. This is so Porus wouldn’t get too suspicious when all of Alexander’s army suddenly went missing.

As a source of communication, Alexander set up his own pickets along the banks of the river to have faster travel of messages, which were vital in this stealth operation. Alexander then moved part of his forces 18 miles up the river where he planned to cross. Under cover of night, and also a thunderstorm luckily,  he began his crossing. They destroyed the boats that they used to cross the Indus river and used the materials as flotilla that would help them bring the supplies and troops across. Unfortunately he didn’t realize that the landmass that he initially thought was the opposite shoreline was actually an isolated island. This added crossing time and allowed Porus’s scouts to spot the forces and inform Porus and move his forces to meet them. Once that happened Craterus was able to cross as well with little resistance; allowing all of Alexander’s forces to cross the river without becoming a massive target.

King Porus arrives on the scene and Alexander is left with a dilemma to solve. King Porus has elephants which are spaced 100 feet apart with cavalry behind them, along with a left and right wings of infantry and cavalry. Alexander knows it would be a death trap to attack the elephants head on, so he splits his army in two. He places ½ of his army in the command of general Coenus, and the rest in his command. Alexander leads the charge and attacks Porus’ left wing. In response, his cavalry rushes over to support the left wing, leaving the right wing with little support. General Coenus then attacks the right wing. ½ of Porus’ cavalry in response turns around to help out, splitting Porus’ army in half. This is exactly what Porus didn’t want to happen. As the battle progressed, Alexander’s army slowly condensed Porus’ army into a circle, taking out the elephant drivers when possible. The elephants were still a problem, but one that they solved relatively quickly. They just let the elephants pass when they charged.

It is important to note that the battle was made easier for Alexander because Porus’ chariots proved to be useless in the mud newly created by the storm. Alexander noticed this and made another opportunity to claim himself as a god like being.

As the battle continued on, Alexander’s army encapsulates Porus’ and this lack of space leads to a lack of coordination and chaos. The elephants take out a lot of Alexander’s men, but also take out a lot of Porus’ men too. At about this time, General Craterus comes with his portion of his army and reinforces Alexander.

After this strategic maneuver was done.  The majority of Porus’ army was decimated, and Porus is forced to retreat, wounded from the battle. Alexander sent messengers to Porus to negotiate. Finally negotiating in person, Alexander ask what Porus desires. Porus responds, “Treat me as a king would treat another king.”

Alexander respects this, and allows Porus to keep his land.

After the battle against King Porus was finished, Alexander holds a victory celebration before marching against a neighboring tribe, in which Alexander promised to Porus. The end of this gruesome and tough battle made Alexander’s more hesitant to continue the conquest of India.

In his march further into India, Alexander is troubled to have to deal with a few small rebellions in which he has to delay his conquest. Once taken care of, he continued his conquest; making the inhabitants come to terms or fight.  Most chose to come to terms, but a tribe by the name of the Kathaioi was prepared to fight them.  The rebellious tribe chose their fort, Sangala, as the perfect place to defend.

Although it has not been located yet, Arrian suggests that the fort of Sangala stood on top of a hill. The enemy set up three consecutive circles of wagons around the hill of which Sangala sits, to act as a barrier. Once Alexander understands their tactic, he changes the formation of his army so that the archers ran in front of the enemy front lines. When the battle commenced, the Indians countered by standing on top of the carts and using their bows to strike down Alexander’s cavalry. Alexander adapts by forcing his cavalry to retreat and Alexander leads his infantry head first into the wagon barrier. The Indians are forced to retreat back into the fort.

Alexander takes the break from battle to surround the fort with his army. He did not have enough people to completely encircle the fort, so he had the cavalry patrol the most likely route of escape.

The Indians, under the cover of night, attempted to escape their fort, but were routed back by the cavalry. In a separate attempt, they had opened the gates and had made a run for it. Unfortunately for them, Alexander had learned of this plan and had used the carts against them. Alexander used the cart to block the way of the Indians. Noticing that they wouldn’t be able to escape fast enough, they retreated again. Sangala was finally taken when Alexander’s army climbed the wall with ladders and the town was attacked by siege engines.

In the late summer/ early fall of 326 BCE, Alexander’s army refuses to cross the Hyphasis river. Alexander was convinced that they were nearing the end of the world, but Coenus reminded Alexander that his army was tired and wanted to return home. Angry and annoyed, Alexander waits two days at the Hyphasis river (more commonly known as the Beas river) and offers a sacrifice, in which he didn’t receive “favorable omens. ” So Alexander turns back, but acting on the will of the gods, and not the men, because that would be weak…

Many scholars disagree on the extent of Alexander’s impact on India’s history.

As Dr. V.A. Smith said, “India remained unchanged. The wounds of battle were quickly healed India was not Hellenized. She continued to live her life of splendid isolation and soon forgot about the passing of the Macedonian storm. No Indian author, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain, makes even the faintest allusion to Alexander or his deeds.”

While Alexander’s campaign was not a defining moment of Indian history, it wasn’t an isolated event of no consequence. It is possible that Alexander’s conquering of the small tribes set an example that allowed for unified Indian rule in the future. Additionally, the Greeks left behind dated records, which were incredibly useful for future historians because they could then more certainly date later events, and the records proved to be a valuable source for early Indian history.

 

Delegations:

HopologyEnthusiast: How

Isaac, Son of Abrahm: When and where

Codexromana99: Who and what

Mediocrelegionnaire: Why

 

Citations:

“The siege of Sangala (in modern Pakistan)” 2016. https://makedonia-alexandros.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-siege-of-sangala-in-modern-pakistan.html

Arrian. “Mutiny at the Hyphasis.” M.M. Austin. Livius.org. 2016. http://www.livius.org/sources/content/arrian/anabasis/mutiny-at-the-hyphasis/

Rawlings, Louis. The Ancient Greeks at War. Manchester University Press, 2007. EBSCOhost, hal.weber.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=514974&site=ehost-live.

Hacker, Barton C. “Greek Catapults and Catapult Technology: Science, Technology, and War in the Ancient World.” Technology and Culture, vol. 9, no. 1, 1968, pp. 34–50. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3102042.

Hamilton, J. R. “The Cavalry Battle at the Hydaspes.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 76, 1956, pp. 26–31. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/629551.

“Tyre.” The Columbia Encyclopedia, Paul Lagasse, and Columbia University, Columbia University Press, 8th edition, 2018. Credo Reference, https://search-credoreference-com.hal.weber.edu/content/entry/columency/tyre/0. Accessed 30 Sep. 2018.

PP.41-46. https://www.proactiongroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/logisticslessons.pdf.

Arrian. Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander and Indica. , England;United Kingdom;, 1893.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/13264115/

“Alexander the Great.” HISTORY. A&E Television Networks, 2009. https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/alexander-the-great.

“Alexander the Great: KING OF MACEDONIA.” Frank W. Walbank. Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great.

“SparkNote on Alexander the Great.” SparkNotes. SparkNotes LLC. 2005. Web. www.sparknotes.com/biography/alexander/.

“Wars of Alexander the Great.” Wikipedia. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Alexander_the_Great.

Wikipedia contributors. “Indian campaign of Alexander the Great.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 23 Sep. 2018. Web. 1 Oct. 2018.

Lendering, Jona. “Alexander the Great.” Livius.org. http://www.livius.org/articles/person/alexander-the-great/

Arrian (1971) The Campaigns of Alexander the Great. Bungay: The Chaucer Press.

V, Shivani. “Alexander’s Invasion and Its Effect on India.” http://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/alexanders-invasion-and-its-effect-on-india/6260

 

 

 

 

It is useful, in an attempt to more fully understand the world-shaking conquest of Alexander the Great, to view the context of his campaign. In learning about the state of the territories that he was to invade, both physically and in other, more temporary aspects, such as the political and cultural status’ of these lands, we discover elements that help to explain some of Alexander’s exceptional military success during his short reign.

The State of Greece

Alexander III of Macedon rose to power in 336 BC, following the assassination of his father Philip II by a royal bodyguard. His father’s accomplishments include the founding of the League of Corinth, a federation of Greek States, formed for mutual defense, as well as with intentions of conquering Persia, though Philip II died before any such campaign could be undertaken. The extent of his control can be seen in this map, where all the marked territories excepting Sparta, Crete, and the Persian Empire (naturally) could be considered his, though parts of it were still, at least in name, “independent” (such as Thrace and Molossia).

Upon Philip’s assassination, Alexander was the heir apparent and laid claim to the throne, though Thebes, Athens, Thessaly, and the some of the Thracian tribes in the northern reaches of the kingdom attempted to rebel. This was something of a kick-start to Alexander’s conquest, however, as his magnificent success in reconquering these rebellious territories–including the total destruction of Thebes–helped secure his native kingdom and established him in the eyes of his army as a capable leader from the very beginning of his campaign. Hence, when he turned toward Persia in 334 BC, his base in the Greek peninsula was stable.

The State of the Achaemenid Persian Empire

Interestingly, Darius III of the Achaemenid Persian Empire ascended the throne as the Persian “King of Kings” in the same year Alexander did, also as the result of his predecessor’s assassination, though his reign was fated to end far sooner than that of his contemporary, Alexander.

The vizier of the Persian empire for some years before 336 BC was a eunuch named Bagoas. Notably, during his time in that office, he was effectively the ruler of the Empire. Those emperors who attempted to assert dominance during this time were poisoned and replaced. However, when he selected Darius III as the new emperor after poisoning most of the family of Artaxerxes IV (as well as the man himself, naturally), Darius showed himself immediately to be dominant and, being forewarned of Bagoas’ tactics, forced his adviser to drink the poison intended for Darius. However, it appears that Darius may have had a harder time establishing his control in his Empire, as Alexander would make quite an indentation in the Persian border before meeting any real opposition from the Emperor.

The Terrain of Alexander’s Route

Alexander spent much of his early conquest of Persia trying to remain close to river banks and the ocean, typically only departing from this approach when it was necessary to conquer a strategic target.. This was a mixed bag for him: it was basically necessary, assuming he wanted supplies to be able to reach his army quickly, and as it allowed his forces to minimize the advantage the more numerous Persian armies that (eventually) opposed them had, but at the same time this left them open to harassment by the Persian navy (sadly, until he conquered enough of Persia’s ports, Alexander had little to no navy of his own). When he did move inland, much of his travel was through mountainous terrain, particularly as he progressed closer to Alexandria Eschate (lit. “the furthest), the final reach of his stretch into Persia.

“File:Map Macedonia 336 BC-en.svg.” Wikimedia Commons. January 28, 2017. Accessed September 30, 2018. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Macedonia_336_BC-en.svg.

The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica. “Bagoas.” Encyclopædia Britannica. April 11, 2016. Accessed September 30,2018. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bagoas.

Kia, Mehrdad. The Persian Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2016.

“Wars of Alexander the Great.” Wikipedia. September 24, 2018. Accessed on September 30, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Alexander_the_Great.

“File:The Achaemenid Empire at its Greatest Extent.jpg.” Wikimedia Commons. August 19, 2017. Accessed on October 1, 2018. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Achaemenid_Empire_at_its_Greatest_Extent.jpg.

caltrop101

 

What kind of troops would be effective?

Assuming we have around 60,000 total troops, choosing which types to bring requires us to understand what the enemy has. In one battle described by Kaushik Roy, Alexander fought against chariot archers, lightly armed cavalry, and disorganized infantry (Roy, 2004). Around 45,000 heavily armored men in the phalanx won’t have much difficulty with the enemy’s infantry, and around 5,500 heavy cavalry (called the companion cavalry) can help against the enemy’s chariots and cavalry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire.

The bigger issue is that India has lots of elephants. When one of the massive beasts charges the phalanx, the dense group of soldiers get trampled and impaled by the iron tipped trunks. A charging elephant can eliminate large groups of men very fast. To help combat this, the phalanx must split up. Instead of being in a big group, they can be divided into smaller groups that stay close enough together to prevent the enemy from surrounding them, but also providing enough room for them to spread out when an elephant charges. They can surround it and attempt to drive it back into the enemy infantry. If it doesn’t work quite so perfectly, it will at least help reduce losses.

Another important group of units would be around 1,500 horse archers. Societies like the Scythians are excellent horse archers, recruit as many of them as possible to help with the not as excellent Macedonian mounted archers (Mounted Archery). Elephant riders would often carry poisoned spikes they could stab into the head of the elephant if it ever turned on its own troops. Archers could pick of the riders to leave the beast uncontrollable and aid in driving it back into the opposing infantry.

The remaining 8,000 troops could contribute to the phalanx or cavalry, but there are some other units that could be useful. Lighter infantry, possibly mercenaries, could make up a lighter infantry that can fight where the phalanx can’t. More archers can be beneficial, especially if they have high power bows that can pierce metal. War elephants can be good, but overall not many should be used because of their unpredictability. Elephants might be more useful as a pack animal, but still require a large amount of food and care.

How do we deal with our troops?

As conquering continues, cities will be established and provides an excellent opportunity to leave behind those who are severely wounded and those who have served their time and would like to stay.  To transport the sick and wounded, they can be carried in a wagon or slung over a pack animal in what is called a litter (Sternberg, 1999). New troops can be recruited from conquered regions and hired as mercenaries. It can be dangerous and expensive to do so, but will help maintain the number of troops. Winning battles will help keep mercenaries on our side.

 

Sources

Mounted Archery. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounted_archery

Roy, K. (2004). India’s Historic Battles: From Alexander the Great to Kargil. Orient Blackswan.

Sternberg, Rachel Hall. “The Transport of Sick and Wounded Soldiers in Classical Greece.” Phoenix, vol. 53, no. 3/4, 1999, pp. 191–205. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1088983.

wingedhussar420

 

Alexander the Great Logistics

The first problem faced by any army is how to provide adequate food and water for a large number of soldiers. In the hot, dry Middle Eastern climate Alexander’s army would have marched through on their way to India, each soldier would require a minimum of 3,400 calories a day, including 70 grams of protein, and at least 9 quarts of water. With around 65,000 soldiers, the army would have to take along about 195,000 pounds of grain, 325,000 pounds of water, and about 375,000 additional pounds of grain to feed pack animals.

Another common problem was the issue of speed and flexibility. In the past, the ox-cart was the most common means of transport for armies traveling long distances. While it allowed more supplies to be moved, the carts only moved about two miles an hour for five hours. Ox-carts also required almost constant repair, necessitating the presence of repairmen, extra lumber, and tools, which added to the overall burden armies had to carry and slowed them even further. The Assyrians were the first to introduce the horse to military operations, allowing their armies greater speed and the ability to move over all types of terrain. While it took five horses to pull a load carried by one ox-cart, horses required almost half the amount of forage and were able to move the load at four miles an hour for eight hours. By the time of the Persians, the rapid growth of army size had created a logistical burden so large that speed and operational flexibility was becoming severely limited. The Persians’ use of horses as part of their military operations did a lot to remedy this issue, though they still relied heavily on the ox-cart. Phillip II and Alexander became the first to make horses a major part of their logistics train.

The mobility issue was further resolved by Phillip of Macedon, who was the first military commander to forbid the presence of camp followers in his armies. Before this, a typical army of 30,000 would bring with it almost the same number of attendants, wives, and various service providers. The logistics burden of his army was reduced by nearly 2/3 without the presence of these people, increasing the army’s combat power as well as the speed at which they were able to travel. Alexander’s army also maximized the speed at which it was able to travel by requiring each soldier to carry his own food and equipment. As a result, soldiers carried nearly 1/3 of the load normally hauled by horses and oxen and the army required almost 5,000 less pack animals.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/le-brun/

Alexander the Great Logistics

The first problem faced by any army is how to provide adequate food and water for a large number of soldiers. In the hot, dry Middle Eastern climate Alexander’s army would have marched through on their way to India, each soldier would require a minimum of 3,400 calories a day, including 70 grams of protein, and at least 9 quarts of water. With around 65,000 soldiers, the army would have to take along about 195,000 pounds of grain, 325,000 pounds of water, and about 375,000 additional pounds of grain to feed pack animals.

Another common problem was the issue of speed and flexibility. In the past, the ox-cart was the most common means of transport for armies traveling long distances. While it allowed more supplies to be moved, the carts only moved about two miles an hour for five hours. Ox-carts also required almost constant repair, necessitating the presence of repairmen, extra lumber, and tools, which added to the overall burden armies had to carry and slowed them even further. The Assyrians were the first to introduce the horse to military operations, allowing their armies greater speed and the ability to move over all types of terrain. While it took five horses to pull a load carried by one ox-cart, horses required almost half the amount of forage and were able to move the load at four miles an hour for eight hours. By the time of the Persians, the rapid growth of army size had created a logistical burden so large that speed and operational flexibility was becoming severely limited. The Persians’ use of horses as part of their military operations did a lot to remedy this issue, though they still relied heavily on the ox-cart. Phillip II and Alexander became the first to make horses a major part of their logistics train.

The mobility issue was further resolved by Phillip of Macedon, who was the first military commander to forbid the presence of camp followers in his armies. Before this, a typical army of 30,000 would bring with it almost the same number of attendants, wives, and various service providers. The logistics burden of his army was reduced by nearly 2/3 without the presence of these people, increasing the army’s combat power as well as the speed at which they were able to travel. Alexander’s army also maximized the speed at which it was able to travel by requiring each soldier to carry his own food and equipment. As a result, soldiers carried nearly 1/3 of the load normally hauled by horses and oxen and the army required almost 5,000 less pack animals.

Sources Cited:

Kast, Bernahrd. “The Logistics of Alexander the Great.” Military History Visualized. April 19, 2016. Accessed September 23, 2018. http://militaryhistoryvisualized.com/logistics_alexander_the_great/.

“Alexander the Great Needed Great Supply Chains.” SCM Globe. March 17, 2014. Accessed September 23, 2018. https://www.scmglobe.com/alexander-the-great-needed-great-supply-chains/.

“Ancient Macedonian Army.” Wikipedia. August 31, 2018. Accessed September 23, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_army.

“Military Supply Chain Management.” Wikipedia. March 9, 2016. Accessed September 23, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_supply_chain_management.

artemisia189

 

Navigation in Ancient Times

Being able to get from place to place was important, not only for regular citizens, but especially for military campaigns.  Alexander would have used every possible tool at his disposal in his conquest of Persia and Asia. Basic maps would have been had among the military, but the real information about the terrain would have come from the native populations.

Alexander was known for using guides from the newly conquered people in order to move to the next place.  These guides often gave accurate information, but sometimes used their position of trust to deceive and mislead.  Treachery of this sort was swiftly dealt with, as the cost in time, supplies and even lives mattered a great deal.  (Engels, 331) Either the guides themselves acted as hostages for their own good performance, or else family members of the guides were taken to insure proper intelligence gathering. (Engels, 331-332)

Another tactic was to use social connections to be introduced in new places.  These friends or kinsmen led the way to the new location and made introductions with the locals in charge. (Stark, 107)  Having the personal connection made it much easier to overtake cities.

It is also important to note that trade routes and roads were used on some of the campaigns.  (Stark, 110) These roads were important not only for the movement of troops, but also for communication sent via horseback.

By Davidbena [CC BY-SA 4.0  (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)%5D, from Wikimedia Commons

For naval use, the employment of sounding weights would have given navigators information about the depth of the water and general topography of the seafloor.  The weight was usually dropped to measure the depth of the water near the shore, but also in times of inclement weather. (Oleson, 119-120)

Interesting Tidbits from the Research

As I was researching this topic, I came across several references to Zoroastrianism in Persia. Alexander got in quite a bit of trouble for going counter to their traditions.  In one instance, Alexander ordered the crucifixion of Bessus, and for the soldiers to keep the vultures away from the body. This upset the Zoroastrians, who believed that it was important for the dead to be devoured by birds and wild beasts. (Livius, 2.12)

People during this time were highly superstitious, and armies often had magicians and soothsayers as part of their advisors.  The final battle between Alexander and Darius III was foretold to spell doom for Darius because of a lunar eclipse. In fact, the omen was so widely known for its negative prediction that many in Darius’ army deserted before the battle began.  (Livius, Alexander the Great)

http://www.livius.org/articles/person/alexander-the-great/

http://www.livius.org/articles/person/alexander-the-great/alexander-2.12/

Engels, Donald. “Alexander’s Intelligence System.” The Classical Quarterly 30, no. 2 (1980): 327-40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/638503.

Oleson, John Peter. “Testing the Waters: The Role of Sounding Weights in Ancient Mediterranean Navigation.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volumes 6 (2008): 119-76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40379301.

Stark, Freya. “Alexander’s March from Miletus to Phrygia.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 78 (1958): 102-20. doi:10.2307/628929.

iamcamalot

 

Punjab and Indus Valley, Approx. 327 BCE.

A well-planned and executed baggage train is essential for any successful military march, or at least for any march in the 4th century BCE. Alexander the Great’s cavalcade was no exception. The efficiency of a baggage train was generally rooted to the ability of its animals in terms of speed, survivability, and strength.

Before addressing the animals, it’s important to know what the “baggage” of a baggage train is. This is all of the army’s provisions: food, equipment, tents, medicine, firewood, etc. It’s also important to note that the followers in this march were not solely comprised of soldiers. In fact, the numbers were greatly bolstered by non-military individuals, as listed by Donald W. Engels:

Traveling with the Macedonians were bodyguards, older Macedonians exempt from combat duty, hostages, servants, seers, physicians, sophists, poets, a historian, a tutor, secretaries, surveyors, the transport guard, Egyptian and Babylonian soothsayers, Phoenician traders, courtesans, a harpist, a siege train, engineers, and as the expedition advanced further into Asia, women and children. (Engels 11)

Alexander was conscious of the size of his following, and took measures to downsize when appropriate. One method was to burn excess baggage and unnecessary carts (Engels 13). It goes without saying that limiting the number of wagons and carts and their respective beasts of burden would speed the march up.

As previously stated, a baggage train is only as good as its animals. Mules, horses, and camels would have been Alexander’s primary “motive power.” Between these three animals, Alexander’s march would be able to transport its cargo with relative speed and efficiency. Mules and horses were effective at weathering down a path for the army to follow (Hammond 28). Camels were capable in the same terrains as mules and horses, but were more strongly suited for desert terrain(Hammond 28). Donkeys and oxen were not used as they were too slow and unfit for long journeys (Hammond 14-15). These animals, though able to be loaded with packs, would have hindered the march.

Having inherited his army from Philip, Alexander would have maintained most of the practices previously in place, including the general unfriendliness towards the usage of carts. Only carts carrying essential battle equipment of medical supplies were allowed (Engels 15). Among whatever other reasoning exists for this decision. It was thought that the usage of carts might encourage individuals to try and bring along cargo that was unimportant and a waste of space (Engels 16). As a general rule, personnel were to carry their own smaller possessions— weapons, armor, utensils, etc.— rather than take up valuable space in wagons or carts (Engels 12). The smaller the train was in both size and weight the easier it would be to traverse and troublesome terrain. According to Livius, the march would have ran into trouble when the Himalayan snows melted and filled rivers in the surrounding valleys. In cases such as these, smaller was better.

As far as amounts go, Engels asserts that, “About 800 pack animals were required by each legion to carry its noncomestible supplies, or about one animal per seven combatants” (17), and notes the increase of Alexander’s army as time went on as he continues, “After crossing the Hellespont, there were about 48,000 soldiers in Alexander’s army and about 6,100 cavalry horses… 1,300 baggage animals would be required” (18).

Bibliography

“Alexander 2.13.” Livius, Last modified January 16, 2017. http://www.livius.org/articles/person/alexander-the-great/alexander-2.13/.

Engels, Donald W. Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.

Hammond, N. G. L. Army Transport in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries. Cambridge: Clare College, 1982.

Loaded Camel. Kisspng. Accessed September 30, 2018. https://www.kisspng.com/png-dromedary-bactrian-camel-baby-camels-clip-art-came-1464809/.

Lovell, Tom. “ Alexander The Great Refusing Water In The Desert.” . American Gallery. Accessed September 30, 2018. https://americangallery.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/tom-lovell-1909-1997/alexander-the-great-refusing-water-in-the-desert/.

aganippe

 

How do we know these things?

Using primary and secondary sources, historians and researchers have been able to piece together most of the information.  Some things have to be inferred based on other historical evidence not related to this particular campaign, but similar in both time period and other methodology.  Additionally, sources are useful for what they spell out, but they are equally useful for what they do not expressly tell. Depending on the audience intended for the original documents, certain information would have been left out based on social norms or the expectation that the intended audience would have already had some of the information.  

iamcamalot

 

Hello all!  I chose the username iamcamalot as a play on words.  I love the story of King Arthur, along with the musical Camelot, and it works because of the nickname I get called sometimes.  I am not as well versed in Ancient and Medieval history as I’d like, and I thought that this class might give me some more insights into that time period.  Plus, who doesn’t like learning about ancient smackdowns?