An online magazine about current archaeology and classical research into the lives of inhabitants of the Roman Empire and Byzantium and the civilizations around them.
The ancient Olympic Games in Greece included contests of trumpet playing in 396 B.C.E. These contests were judged not by musicality but by volume of sound. The instrument used by the Greek trumpeters was the Salpinx, a reported copy of which is preserved in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. This Salpinx measures 157 cm. and is made of thirteen cylindrical parts made of ivory with a bell made of bronze, as is the mouthpiece.
But, signal musicians used as an integral part of a military organization appear first in the Roman Legion. These musicians, called aenatores, utilized a wide variety of trumpets, and signals were sounded on these instruments which the Romans inherited from the Etruscans. The Etruscans were superb metallurgists and smiths, and must have been skilled in the making of bronze or silver trumpets. A collection of forty-three signals were used in the Roman Army.
Instruments in the Roman Legion included trumpets such as the Tuba which was conical shaped and about 117 cm. long. It was a straight horn that had a slightly flaring bell with no bends. The Cornu was a long curved instrument made of bronze, in the shape of a “G,” which was more of a modern french horn shape and was played with the bell placed over the shoulder. Another was the Buccina, which was in the shape of a “J” and was more like an animal’s horn. The Lituus was also shaped like the Buccina, in the shape of a “J.” - Jari Villanueva, https://www.tapsbugler.com/history-of-the-bugle/
Vegetius described the use of these horns to give signals:
"The music of the legion consists of trumpets, cornua and buccinae. The trumpet sounds the charge and the retreat. The cornua are used only to regulate the motions of the colors. The trumpets serve when the soldiers are ordered out to any work without the colors, but in time of action, the trumpets and cornua sound together. The classicum, which is a particular sound of the buccina or horn, is appropriated to the commander-in-chief and is used in the presence of the general, or at the execution of a soldier, as a mark of its being done by his authority. The ordinary guards and outposts are always mounted and relieved by the sound of trumpet, which also directs the motions of the soldiers on working parties and on field days. The cornua sound whenever the colors are to be struck or planted. These rules must be punctually observed in all exercises and reviews so that the soldiers may be ready to obey them in action without hesitation according to the general's orders either to charge or halt, to pursue the enemy or to retire. For reason will convince us that what is necessary to be performed in the heat of action should constantly be practiced in the leisure of peace."
My closeup of the Statuette of a Roman bugler, bronze, 100-200 CE, at the Getty Villa in Pacific Palisades, California.
Statuette of a Roman bugler, bronze, 100-200 CE, at the Getty Villa in Pacific Palisades, California. The figure wears armor including a crested helmet and a cuirass with one row of pteryges. Over his cuirass is a cingulum, a ceremonial sash or military belt that is wrapped around the waist and tied at the front with a square knot to protect the bearer from evil. A cloak is wrapped around his left arm, which is extended to support a now-missing bugle. The figure’s right arm is bent to hold the instrument to his mouth as he moves to the right. Image courtesy of the J. Paul Getty Museum.
Cornu depicted on the Grand Ludovisi Battle Sarcophagus, 251-252 century CE, found in 1621 near the Tiburtina Gate in Rome courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Marie-Lan Nguyen.
My image of the Cornu depicted on the Grand Ludovisi Battle Sarcophagus, 251-252 century CE, found in 1621 near the Tiburtina Gate in Rome.
Greek Mural painting depicting a trumpeter at the Archaeological Museum of Delos. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Zde.
Musicians playing the salpinx (trumpet) and the hydraulis (water organ), Romano-Egyptian, 1st century BCE, from Alexandria, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Marie-Lan Nguyen.
Roman musicians on the Zilten Mosaic, 200 CE, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Dulcem and livius.org.
Relief with a scene of gladiator fight, perhaps part of a funerary monument, 1st century BC. Two trumpet players proclaim the victory of the duel. The winner raises his sword and awaits the verdict of the spectators, who decide life or death for the loser. Relief now in the collections of the Glyptothek in Munich, Germany. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Bibi Saint-Pol.
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!
When Ardashir I (r. 224-241 CE) founded the Sasanian Empire, he created a standing army which was under his personal command and whose officers were separate from satraps, local princes and nobility. He restored the Achaemenid military organizations, retained the Parthian cavalry model, and employed new types of armor and siege warfare techniques.
Organizationally, the Shahanshah (the King of Kings) served as the head of the military and there were four military commanders under his authority. Initially, the offices of the Great King of Armenia, King of Meshan, King of Gilan, and King of Sakastan fulfilled these roles. After the reforms of Khosrow I, there were four spahbeds (Army Commanders), each for a cardinal direction.
In the character of their warfare, the Persians of the Sasanian period differed greatly, though, from their forebears under the Achaemenid kings. The war chariot was no longer used, the elephant corps was advanced to a very prominent and important position, and cavalry on the Parthian model, including both heavy cataphracts and horse-archers became pre-eminent. Therefore, the strategic components became the elephants, the horse, the archers, and the ordinary footmen.
The Sasanian army employed foreign mercenary troops from many different regions. The most frequently used types of mercenaries were Kurdish mercenaries from the northern boundary of the Zagros, who begin to appear in 6th-century sources, tribal people from Gilan and Daylam, Caucasian Albanians (regarded as elite soldiers equal to Huns in the 4th-century), and Sakastanis.
The Parthian Azadan nobility continued to serve the Sasanian state, forming a minor aristocracy of lower-ranking administrators, mostly living on their small estates and providing the cavalry backbone of the Sasanian army. Most prestigious among them were the armored Asvaran, sometimes referred to as Savaran, who were the forerunners of the later Arabian Faris, the Caucasian horsemen, the Indian Sowar (derived from Persian Savar), and the Turkish Tarkhans.
During the early Sasanian period, these fiercesome warriors battled forces of the Roman emperors Valerian, Galerius, and Julian and later the forces of the Byzantine emperors Justin I and II and Justinian directed by his famous general Belisarius.
Sasanian helmet, 4th century CE at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Surviving examples of Sasanian armor are extremely rare, particularly in such stunning condition as this helmet. It consists of a bronze band forming a rim and supporting two arched bands that cross over the top. Between these arched bands there are triangular plates of iron that are overlaid with sheets of silver worked in scale patterns. Sasanian silversmiths were renowned for their craftsmanship.
Iranian Bronze Silver and Iron Helmet 225 to 650 CE that I photographed at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in Los Angeles, California
Reconstruction of a Sasanian cataphract in Oxford courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor John Tremelling
Remnants of a Sasanian gold sword with two-point suspension, 600-650 CE at the Sackler Gallery of Asian Art at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Quadell.
Sasanian silver plate depicting an equestrian single combat scene at the Azerbaijan Museum in Tabriz, Iran courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Alborz Fallah. Some scholars think this plate, although in the style of Sasanian plates usually featuring hunt scenes, was likely manufactured in the late 1920s or 1930s when Iranian national awareness was enhanced by modern archaeological research.
Shahnameh illustration of the Sasanian general Sukhra fighting the Hephthalites (484 CE) attributed to Bashdan Qara ca. 1530-35, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Abu'l Qasim Firdausi.
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!
The Byzantine army evolved from that of the late Roman Empire, but it became considerably more sophisticated in strategy, tactics and organization over time. The language of the army was still Latin, until the 6th century when Greek became the official language of the entire empire. Unlike the Roman legions, though, the Byzantines' strength was in its cavalry, especially the armored cataphracts, which evolved from the clibanarii of the late empire.
The Romans introduced armored cavalry after clashing with cataphracts at the battles of Magnesia in 190 BCE against the Seleucids, Trigranocerta in 69 BCE against the Armenians, and the disastrous Carrhae in 53 BCE against the Parthians. Parthian cataphracts became a constant threat from the 1st - 2nd centuries CE then their threat was replaced by the cataphracts of the Sassanian Persians in the 3rd century CE.
Marc Antony and Cleopatra employed contarii (from the Greek kontarioi meaning lancers) in the 1st century BCE and, when Thracia became a Roman province in 45 CE, the Thracian aristocracy provided Rome with heavy armored lancers. According to Josephus, cavalrymen with long spears were used by Flavian troops in 69 CE, too, although scholars have not been able to determine if Vespasian raised regular units of contarii. However, by the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian (98-138 CE) armored cavalrymen and, sometimes , completely armored horses, began to appear in allied cavalry recruited in the Eastern provinces.
Contarii wielded the contus ( Greek kontos), using it two-handed. The later Byzantine kontarion used by Byzantine cataphracts, from about 1100 CE onwards, was used single-handed couched under the armpit.
The kontarioi were supported by heavy infantry, the armored skutatoi (a name derived from the scutum, the classic rectangular Roman shield) and the psiloi, light infantry who usually acted as skirmishers and missile troops, including archers and slingers, and who fought irregularly in a loose formation and wore little armor. The skutatoi were armed with the deadly, three metre-long kontarion, derived from the kontos lance favored by cataphracts. Some skutatoi were positioned on the front lines to repel cavalry, with their sword-armed counterparts behind them, ready for the melee that followed the initial charge.
The Byzantines valued intelligence and discipline in their soldiers far more than bravery or brawn. The "RomaÃoi stratiótai" were a loyal force composed of citizens willing to fight to defend their homes and their state to the death, augmented by mercenaries. The training was very much like that of the legionaries, with the soldiers taught close combat techniques with their swords, spears and axes, along with the extensive practice of archery. The Byzantine army's reliance on heavier cavalry, more archers and other missile troops, and fewer Foederati may have been contributing factors to the eastern empire's survival after the fall of the Western Empire in 476 CE.
Bronze Byzantine Warrior of the 4th-5th century CE at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
Image: Illustration of Roman Heavy Cavalry by Andrey Negin for Osprey Publishing's title, "Roman Heavy Cavalry (1): Cataphractarii and Clibanarii, 1st century BCE-5th century CE.
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!
In his book, The Armour of Imperial Rome, published in 1975, British classicist H. R. Robinson identified 30 different types of cheek guards. However, Robinson's typology has been heavily criticized by other scholars as too rigid and closed to adapt to new discoveries. Thomas Fischer, author of "Army of the Roman Emperors, Archaeology and History," points to the systematic identification of every elaborate ornate cavalry helmet as parade armor that resulted in hardly any of the recovered helmets from the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE as regular cavalry helmets. He observes that on the basis of finds made at Ostrov and Tell Oum Hauran, ornamentation alone was not enough to assign a helmet to parade armor.
"...these assemblages contained two ornate helmets: one with a face-mask and one without a mask. It seems logical that the latter was the piece for everyday use and combat."
The oldest recovered Roman helmet dates to the 3rd century BCE. It was recovered from Pizzighettone near Cremona. It was so similar to helmets used by the Etruscans, it took some time before it was finally accepted as a piece of Roman armament. It has been designated as a Montefortino type and was relatively unadorned. This helmet with cheek pieces was used for about 300 years. During Caesar's Gallic Wars, the Montefortino helmet type has been found along with the Mannheim type. Unfortunately no cheekpieces have been found with the Mannheim type, although holes for cheekpiece attachment are present. During the Gallic Wars, the Celtic Port-type iron helmet, with higher bowl and separately attached neck guard, was adapted. During the Augustan period the Port-type was transformed into what is now referred to as the Weisenau type.
Ornamentation became more pronounced with the Weisenau type helmet. A helmet now known as the Gutmann variant displays an engraved ornamentation on its cheekpiece. Rivets added to cheekpieces for strength were sometimes capped with florets. These florets were sometimes combined with enamel-filled rivet heads, embossed strips, edging and ornamental sheet appliques. The helmet bowl itself began to exhibit what is termed "stylized eyebrows" as well.
As the 1st and 2nd century CE progressed, the cheekpiece became wider and wider, especially those of the cavalry. They were always decorated and on the part covering the ear was usually an embossed replica of the ear. The earplate itself was perforated to improve hearing. These helmets were so distinctive, scholars gave them the subtype designation of Neiderbieber type. By the middle of the 4th century CE, cheek pieces covered so much of the facial region they left just the eyes and nose exposed.
A ridged cavalry helmet of the Deurne-Berkasovo type with jewel-studded cheekpieces at the Vojvodina Museum at Novy Sad courtsy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Filip Popovic
Fragment of a Roman cheekpiece, 3rd century CE at the Roman museum Kastell Boiotro ( Passau ) courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Wolfgang Sauber
A cheekpiece from the Hallaton Cavalry Sports Helmet Type 1, cheekpiece courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Prioryman
Part of a Roman cavalry parade helmet with relief of a bacchant at the Archaeological Museum Gunzenhausen in Bavaria courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Wolfgang Sauber
Bronze cheek piece of a Roman officer's helmet 2nd century CE at the Metropolitan Museum of Art courtesy of the museum. This left cheek piece is decorated with the figure of Victory bearing a trophy. It probably belongs to an officer's helmet, since its ornate workmanship would accord with the owner's high rank.
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!
According to Arrian of Nicomedia, a Roman provincial governor and a close friend of Hadrian, face mask helmets were used in cavalry parades and sporting mock battles called “hippika gymnasia“. Both men and horses wore elaborate suites of equipment on these occasions, often in the guise of Greeks and Amazons. Parades or tournaments played an important part in maintaining unit morale and fighting effectiveness. They took place on a parade ground situated outside a fort and involved the cavalry practising manoeuvring and the handling of weapons such as javelins and spears (Fields, Nic; Hook, Adam. Roman auxiliary cavalryman: AD 14-193).
Calvary helmets were made from a variety of metals and alloys, often from gold-coloured alloys or iron covered with tin. They were decorated with embossed reliefs and engravings depicting the war god Mars and other divine and semi-divine figures associated with the military.
To see a fascinating selection of these masks and read more about them check out:
"Women at War in the Classical World" by Paul Chrystal is a compilation of anecdotes, gleaned from a variety of ancient sources, about the activities of women in societies directed by men engaged in martial activities. The book divides these anecdotes into subunits for the Greeks and Romans. From there it is further subdivided into chapters on women in legend and women in history. But I thought it suffered beyond that point because it lacked a topical framework to organize the various activities associated with the decisions to make war, the funding of warfare, the logistics to prepare for war, the military forces in the field, and finally the fate of victims of ancient conflict. Chrystal had anecdotes for each of these phases of ancient warfare but they were jumbled together so much that I felt like I was bumping along a Roman road in a crude oxcart with no suspension. There was no transitional phrases to give you a clue as to the relationship between one paragraph and the next so I found his narrative hard to follow.
At one point we jump from an anecdote about Hortensia's oratorical prowess to object to the Second Triumvirate's tax levy on wealthy women to the ostentatious behavior of Catiline's wife Sempronia and then to Porcia's rather extreme strategies to get Brutus to share his plans assassinate Caesar.
Although the tax levy issue could be categorized as eventually funding warfare, the behavior of Catiline's wife and Porcia, without any reference to warfare seem extraneous and irrelevant to the topic without some additional details. Furthermore, these brief summaries are not even presented in chronological order thereby jumbling the history so a development of behavioral patterns based on precedent cannot even be considered.
Chrystal's book provides a number of documented references to women in the classical world, which, in itself, constitutes a helpful resource. I just felt it could have been organized much better to focus the work on warfare and irrelevant anecdotes pruned.
Overall, I found my expectation of the contents based on the book's title simply wasn't met. Chrystal's decision to document the activities of ancient women in a martial society as revealed by a variety of ancient sources was not a comprehensive analysis of how these activities supported and encompassed the prosecution of ancient warfare which is what I had anticipated.
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!
Casemate Academic Publishing recently sent me a reference text to examine entitled "Army of the Roman Emperors: Archaeology and History" by Thomas Fischer. This comprehensive work is divided into six parts.
Part I, written by Dietrich Boschung, examines "Iconographic sources for the Roman military" from the Republican period through Late Antiquity. I found its in-depth descriptions of some famous Roman imagery very revealing. Furthermore, some of the astonishing pieces I had not seen before either. One such piece was the Gemma Augusta, a low-relief cameo cut from Arabian onyx attributed to Dioscurides or one of his disciples created in the second or third decade of the 1st century CE. It is currently housed in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria. The text explains the significance of each major figure on the piece, something you rarely get with a museum identification card, and speculates on the purpose for which the piece was created.
1st century CE Roman cameo depicting Tiberius and Augustus with various deities and prisoners
courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Carole Raddato
It peaked my interest so much that I researched the cameo further and discovered there are also alternative explanations for some of the figures, particularly those in the lower register where captives are shown awaiting the erection of a tropaion. It was interesting to read how various art historians use slight clues from hairstyles and attire in combination with a knowledge of political and military history of the period to determine who is actually represented and for what purpose.
Part II explores the changes that occurred over time in the armament and equipment of the Roman army, a result of the development of more advanced weapons and fluctuations in the procurement of raw materials. It also discusses archaeological finds made in different contexts such as battlefield and siege finds, objects recovered from camps, forts and other military sites, those found in civilian settlements, and artifacts recovered from water deposits, hoards, and grave sites.
Part III examines all of the costumes, weapons, and equipment from original archaeological finds. This was my favorite section since I am a visually-oriented person and it was full of photographs, drawings, and reconstructions of objects actually recovered from the field. I was particularly impressed with the condition of some of the artifacts, especially ornate pugio scabbards and cavalry helmets, many of them, I noticed, in private collections. I was also surprised by the variety of different helmet designs and the degree of ornamentation on some accessories like a privately-owned collection of cheek pieces. I really appreciated the drawings showing the placement of some items of a legionary's kit and those used with horses, too.
Part IV explored the details of Roman army constructions and architecture from marching camps to vexillation fortresses and how defensive structures changed through the centuries. There is even a discussion of the various military structures in Rome itself from the Castra Praetoria to the accommodation for the vigiles.
Part V wraps up the army portion with a chronological look at military conflicts and the armament and equipment used in each historical period beginning with the Republic.
Then Part VI discusses the development of the Roman navy from the arming and equipping of the marines to locations of naval installations including those along major rivers and tributaries. A wealth of illustrations, informed by not only iconographic sources but the recovery of actual vessels, depict various ships and smaller craft as well as harbor installations.
I think this book would be an invaluable reference work for not only Roman history enthusiasts and re-enactors but aspiring novelists as well. Its extensive bibliography serves as a stepping stone to more research sources and it offers a thorough index as well.
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!
In my struggle to try to understand the conflicts in the Middle East, I recently watched a three-part documentary produced by Al Jazeera entitled "World War I Through Arab Eyes". About 30 minutes into the first installment I was stunned by an account of Roman-style decimation that occured on December 15, 1914 near the Belgium village of Zillebeke. In the documentary, Tunisian writer Jaloul Azouna related his father's eyewitness account describing how 20 Tunisian colonial soldiers of the French 8th Co. 10th Battalion Regiment Mixte de Tiraillerus were selected at random, draped with a placard and order to march unarmed into the German lines. Their comrades were ordered to shoot them down if the Germans did not.
Although I have watched Stanley Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" about the execution of French soldiers who refuse to continue a suicidal attack, for some reason I was under the impression the film was based on an isolated occurrence. My knowledge of World War I is admittedly limited, primarily what I've learned from watching "Once An Eagle", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Blue Max" and a few documentaries with grainy images produced by The History Channel. I also remember listening to my husband's grandfather, a carpenter, who was assigned to build coffins when he arrived in France in 1917 as part of the American Expeditionary Forces. So, I was so shocked to learn the French employed full scale decimation, repeatedly that I felt compelled to learn more about it. Not only did I find confirmation of the action described in the Al Jazeera program, the best documented, but learned that the use of decimation was employed periodically throughout 1914 and 1915 and perhaps beyond (the military records have since been sealed and will not be made available to the public until 2017). In addition to the Zillebeke decimation, I found references to the following incidents as well.
On the 23rd of September 1914 twelve men, 1/10 of the 5th Regiment of the 73rd brigade of the 37th Infantry Division, an Algerian regiment, were shot personally by the company commander in an act of decimation for abandoning the field of battle.
At Souain, in Marne, in March 1915, the soldiers of the 21st company of the 336th Infantry Regiment, exhausted by the fighting, refused to get out of the trench to attack the village. Twenty-four men were brought to court martial, four corporals were sentenced to death and shot.
At Flirey, Lorraine, in April 1915, the 5th company of the 63rd Infantry Regiment, who had just taken part in a harsh offensive were brought back to the cantonment and appointed to lead a new attack. But the men refused to get out of the trench. Six men were selected for court martial with four sentenced to death and executed.
In WWI, French colonial troops were said to be unsuitable for trench warfare so were often called to attack enemy positions.
Of the "Entente" countries who participated in "The Great War", more than 1700 soldiers were sentenced to death and executed for cowardice or desertion. Of this total more than 600 French soldiers including their colonial conscripts met this end. The Italian Army, another force that employed decimation, executed 750. The English shot 350. The U.S. and Australia were the only countries who refused to execute individuals for cowardice.
These incidents were identified by a French organization known as the Ligue des droits de l'Homme (LDH). The LDH has been working since "The Great War" to "rehabilitate" the military records of men who were shot "by example". These men were not only executed but, in Roman terms, suffered damnatio memoriae. Their families did not receive any compensation for their loss and their names were not allowed to be inscribed on any commemorative memorials.
Many modern military commanders hold up the Roman army as an example of the value of stern discipline. But was Roman discipline as harsh as we have been led to believe or did it become a modern myth used to enforce obedience in crises resulting from poor leadership?
Polybius, writing in the 2nd century BCE, clearly explains punishment by the bastinado (fustuarium). Describing the punishment for those who fail to keep night watch:
"The tribune takes a cudgel and just touches the condemned man with it, after which all in the camp beat or stone him, in most cases dispatching him in the camp itself. But even those who manage to escape are not saved thereby: impossible! for they are not allowed to return to their homes, and none of the family would dare to receive such a man in his house. So that those who have of course fallen into this misfortune are utterly ruined. The same punishment is inflicted on the optio and on the praefect of the squadron, if they do not give the proper orders at the right time to the patrols and the praefect of the next squadron. Thus, owing to the extreme severity and inevitableness of the penalty, the night watches of the Roman army are most scrupulously kept." - Polybius, Book VI:37
In addition to failure to keep night watch, Polybius lists other offenses that result in clubbing:
"The bastinado is also inflicted on those who steal anything from the camp; on those who give false evidence; on young men who have abused their persons; and finally on anyone who has been punished thrice for the same fault. Those are the offences which are punished as crimes, the following being treated as unmanly acts and disgraceful in a soldier — when a man boasts falsely to the tribune of his valour in the field in order to gain distinction; when any men who have been placed in a covering force leave the station assigned to them from fear; likewise when anyone throws away from fear any of his arms in the actual battle. Therefore the men in covering forces often face certain death, refusing to leave their ranks even when vastly outnumbered, owing to dread of the punishment they would meet with; and again in the battle men who have lost a shield or sword or any other arm often throw themselves into the midst of the enemy, hoping either to recover the lost object or to escape by death from inevitable disgrace and the taunts of their relations." - Polybius, Book VI:37
The most feared and probably most famous military punishment described by Polybius became known as decimation:
"If the same thing ever happens to large bodies, and if entire maniples desert their posts when exceedingly hard pressed, the officers refrain from inflicting the bastinado or the death penalty on all, but find a solution of the difficulty which is both salutary and terror-striking. The tribune assembles the legion, and brings up those guilty of leaving the ranks, reproaches them sharply, and finally chooses by lots sometimes five, sometimes eight, sometimes twenty of the offenders, so adjusting the number thus chosen that they form as near as possible the tenth part of those guilty of cowardice. Those on whom the lot falls are bastinadoed mercilessly in the manner above described; the rest receive rations of barley instead of wheat and are ordered to encamp outside the camp on an unprotected spot. As therefore the danger and dread of drawing the fatal lot affects all equally, as it is uncertain on whom it will fall; and as the public disgrace of receiving barley rations falls on all alike, this practice is that best calculated to both inspire fear and to correct the mischief." Polybius, Book VI:38
Roman history is littered, though, with accounts of military mutinies. So how often were the severe punishments outlined by Polybius actually dispensed?
In his book, "Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family", Richard Saller points out that beatings were viewed by the Romans as "the grossest form of invasion and thus a deep humiliation." Beating was associated with slaves so Saller maintained that Roman fathers were discouraged from beating their children, even though they had the right to do so, "lest the servile punishment inculcate servile habits." Saller believed, however, that soldiers were in a separate category saying "corporal punishment to enforce discipline was part of a soldier's way of life."
Eugenia C. Kiesling, Professor of Classical History at the United States Military Academy, West Point, thinks this may not have been the case in actual practice, though. In her article, "Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities", Kiesling points out that Roman law protected citizens from violence and such military punishments were not a necessity as demonstrated by the Greeks who were able to maintain discipline without the lash.
"Instead of assuming that Roman citizens accepted treatment in military life that they would have considered outrageous elsewhere, one ought to wonder about the realities of Roman punishment and the reliability of Roman obedience." - Eugenia C. Kiesling, Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities
Roman Centurion with vinestick. The vitis,
however, was not listed in the ancient sources
as a standard accouterment of a centurion.
Image courtesy of Total War: Rome by Creative Assembly.
She goes on to say,
"Almost a century ago William Stuart Messer, observing the prevalence of mutiny in the legions throught the entire history of Rome, suggested that perfect Roman disipline was in fact a 'legend'....Roman attitudes towards military punishments were more varied and complex than those of the Greeks, combining rhetorical praise for strict discipline with tacit acknowledgment of the sensitivities of citizen soldiers. Roman commanders sometimes inflicted corporal punishment, but not as a matter of course and not without the risk of mutiny." - Eugenia C. Kiesling, Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities
Kiesling describes several events recorded by Livy where corporal punishment backfired on those attempting to administer it. In 473 BCE a lictor attempted to flog one Publius Volero for refusing conscription. A mob intervened and the lictors fled with their rods broken. Volero was subsequently elected tribune. In 414 BCE, military tribune Marcus Postumius Regilensis addressed the Roman senate and demanded the punishment of soldiers who objected to his distribution of booty. The Senate was appalled by the tribune's arrogance. After the soldiers in question learned of his demands, a rebellion broke out in camp and a quaestor was attacked.
"After ordering some of the rebellious soldiers to be crushed to death, Postumius was stoned by his soldiers. The plebs deferred the punishment of the killers to the consuls, who, judging the case with 'summa moderatione ac lenitate,' condemned only a few." - Eugenia C. Kiesling, Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities
Kiesling points out that these accounts imply Roman leaders had conflicted feelings about the maintainence of discipline in support of the actions of a bad commander. She says even in the famous case of Titus Manlius Torquatus beheading his son as a salutary lesson in discipline Livy appears to be uncomfortable with this extreme example of Roman "virtue". She observes Livy rejects as too "dark" a similar story involving the Dictator Aulus Postumius Tubertus and his son in 431 BCE.
Consul Titus Manlius Torquatus beheading his son by Ferdinand Bol.
In another example from Livy, Kiesling states that soldiers so hated their commander Quintus Fabius that, after he had broken an opposing army with a cavalry charge, they refused to advance upon the fleeing foe to complete the victory. Then the following year, the men of Appius Claudius so disliked their commander that they allowed themselves to be defeated by the Volscians.
"The general's initial efforts at punishment were blocked by his officers, who warned him that the men would fight only of their free will." - Eugenia C. Kiesling, Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities
Only after a second defeat by the Volscians was Claudius able to successfully order the execution of soldiers who threw away their arms. Then he decimated the army as a whole.
"Caution in punishing even the most glaring military crimes can be seen in both Polybius' and Livy's accounts of mutiny in Spain in 206 BCE in the legions of Publius Cornelius Scipio (later Africanus)...Scipio ordered his officers to invite the ringleaders to dinner and ply them with drink. Having captured them and surrounded the rebellious legions with loyal men, Scipio castigated the mutinous troops and ordered the immediate flogging and execution of thirty-five men. The others reaffirmed their oaths..." - Eugenia C. Kiesling, Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities
Scipio took the action described, however, only after debating the extent of punishment to be meted out with his advisors.
"Over the centuries after Scipio's successful handling of the mutiny in Spain, the Roman army underwent a series of significant changes as volunteers replaced conscripts, the cohortal legion replaced the manipular, loyalty shifted from the Republic to competing generals of the late Republic and finally to Emperors (and pretenders), and auxiliary troops fighting in tribal or national units became increasingly central to Roman defense. On the one hand, one might expect discipline to have become more severe as soldiering evolved from a civic obligatiion into a means of escape from poverty. On the other hand, in an age of civil strife, a commander's need to attract men to his eagles may have discouraged extreme severity." - Eugenia C. Kiesling, Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities
Publius Cornelius Scipio freeing Massiva by Giovanni Batista Tiepolo 1719-1721 CE
Even Gaius Marius who was described by Plutarch as a harsh character who exercised authority with unbridled passion maintained the approval of his soldiers through the fairness of his judgments.
In his "Life of Lucullus", Plutarch says that general forced men who had fled from battle to dig a large trench while other soldiers watched, a "customary disgrace," falling far short of the expected execution for cowardice.
Marcus Licinius Crassus perpetrated the most famous incidence of decimation during the Third Servile War only because of very unique circumstances (in my opinon). The troops who threw down their weapons and fled a battle with the slave army of Spartacus in 72 BCE were paid for by Crassus himself, purchased so to speak, by the wealthiest man in the Republic. They were not professional soldiers like those of the later Empire but newly recruited (although supposedly trained to some extent). Furthermore, their foe was an army of slaves. These Roman citizens ran from slaves. Therefore, from a public perspective, they were worse than slaves and deserved the punishment of disobedient slaves who threatened their superiors. I am also relatively certain Crassus had well paid burley body guards to prevent any demonstrations of resistance as well.
Clementia was Julius Caesar's watchword, though, in both the military and the political realm.
"Caesar's biggest stick was threat of dismissal from his army, which always led soldiers to beg his forgiveness and urge him to punish those who had led them astray." - Eugenia C. Kiesling, Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities
When Caesar's troops fled the field at Dyrrachium, leaving 32 standards in the hands of Pompey's forces, Caesar insisted that his soldiers felt their humiliation so strongly that they punished themselves. Appian reports that officers, feeling Caesar's reprimands did not meet the enormity of the offense, proposed the decimation of their own units. But Caesar reassured his soldiers rather than punish them.
Unfortunately, Caesar's successor, Augustus, was not so lenient and revived the punishment of decimation in 17 BCE. But his successor, Tiberius was first and foremost a soldier and did not resort to cudgels to restore order when his troops became disgruntled.
In 14 CE, troops from the Army of Pannonia complained of brutality by the centurions, in particular the camp prefect Aufidienus Rufus, who was hated for attempting to restore old-fashioned hard military discipline (antiquam durumque militiam). The soldiers mutinied and began plundering surrounding villages. When the camp commander attempted to restore order, a notorious centurion, Lucilius, Cedo Alterm (bring another [vinestick]) was murdered. Emperor Tiberius dispatched his son Drusus to bargain with the soldiers. Drusus lectured the men on discipline then ordered the execution of only two ringleaders.
Germanicus dealt with an even more serious mutiny by offering demobilization after twenty years service and cash. When further violence erupted, "Germanicus addressed the soldiers on the importance of obedience, whereupon they took it upon themselves to massacre the leading mutineers on the spot."
Although Josephus claims Roman discipline included the punishment of even trivial offenses with death, other ancient sources do not support his claims.
"...after Vespasian's troops broke during an attack on the town of Gamala, leaving their commander to cut his way back to Roman lines, Vespasian not only failed to punish the troops for retreating but 'consoled them, suppressing any allusion to himself to avoid the least semblance of reproof.' When troops under the command of Vespasian's son Titus ignored orders and fell into a Jewish trap, Titus merely threatened mass execution and settled for a lecture on obedience." - Eugenia C. Kiesling, Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities
"The mutinies and their resolution suggest that the army of the early Principate, though different in composition from that of the Republic, would rebel against corporal punishment and that even the sons of Princeps had to handle mutinous troops with care. Ironically, the continuing mildness of military punishments contrasts with the increasing cruelty of Roman civilian life and the elimination of traditional protections for Roman citizens." - Eugenia C. Kiesling, Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities
In his 5th century CE work, "De Re Militari", Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus gives us a much less draconian outline for Roman military discipline than Polybius.
"Vegetius describes discipline as the key to Roman success, more important than numbers or even courage, but he does not equate discipline with punishment. While the Romans of old 'were strict in punishing ideleness and sloth,' a soldier's courage came from knowledge and practice of his profession. Mutiny could normally be prevented by constant training; 'in short, a soldier who has proper confidence in his own skill and strength, entertains no thought of mutiny.' If necessary, potential trouble makers could be dispatched to other posts. In the worst case, that of an actual mutiny, the commander ought, 'after the manner of the ancients, to punish the ringleaders only in order that , though few suffer, all may be terrified by the example'...it is much more to the credit of a general to form his troops to submission and obedience by habit and discipline than to be obliged to force them to their duty by the terror of punishment.'"- Eugenia C. Kiesling, Corporal Punishment in the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion: Modern Images and Ancient Realities
If only those French commanders during World War I had actually studied Roman history instead of using its most sensational punishment so callously.
Richard Sailer, Patriarchy, Property, and Death in the Roman Family (Cambridge,
1994), p. 136.
William Stuart Messer, "Mutiny in the Roman Army. The Republic," Classical Philology
15(1920): 158-175
Peter Garnsey, "Why Penalties Become Harsher: The Roman Case," The Natural Law
Forum 13 (1968): 152. Gamsey identifies the use of the rod on citizens as an imperial
innovation, pp.147-48
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!
"Visitors to the renovated Roman Gerulata military camp in the Bratislava district of Rusovce experienced the atmosphere of ancient Rome on September 8.
Hundreds of visitors, mainly whole families, took advantage of the free admission to the camp. The all-day events ended with a two-hour 'Roman Freakshow' in the evening, in which Cleopatra, the Empress Minerva, Cicero, and other leading figures of the period came back to life.
The Roman Gerulata military camp is a national cultural monument administered by the Bratislava City Museum. It was built in the second half of the first century to defend the border of the Empire.
The camp was under renovation from February 1, 2006 until July 31, 2007, and it was re-opened with a special Roman Games this summer. The European Union and the Slovak government made a joint contribution of Sk4.3 million (€127,000) to finance the project, along with Sk500,000 from the City of Bratislava."
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!
