Military organization Roman Republic played a huge role in its history. About the meaning armies of Rome evidenced by the creation of centuriate assemblies consisting of armed warriors.
The enormous expansion of its borders, achieved by armed means, testified both to the role of the army and to the growth of its political importance. And the very fate of the republic was largely in the hands of the army.
Rome's original military organization was simple. There was no standing army. All citizens from 18 to 60 years of age who had property qualifications were required to participate in hostilities (and clients could perform military duties instead of patrons). Warriors had to come on a campaign with their weapons, which corresponded to their property qualifications, and food. As noted above, each category of propertied citizens fielded a certain number of centuries, united into legions. The Senate gave command of the army to one of the consuls, who could transfer command to the praetor. The legions were led by military tribunes, the centuries were commanded by centurions, and the cavalry units (decurii) were led by decurions. If hostilities continued for more than a year, the consul or praetor retained his right to command the army.
Greater military activity led to changes in military organization. From 405 BC Volunteers appeared in the army and began to be paid. In the 3rd century. BC. in connection with the reorganization of the centuriate assembly, the number of centuries increased. Up to 20 legions were formed on their base. In addition, legions appear from the allies, municipalities organized by Rome and provinces annexed to it. In the II century. BC. they already constituted up to two-thirds of the Roman army. At the same time, the property qualification with which military duty was associated was lowered.
The duration and frequency of wars turns the army into a permanent organization. They also caused growing discontent among the main contingent of soldiers - the peasantry, distracted from their farms, which were falling into decay because of this. There is a need to reorganize the army. It was carried out by Marius in 107 BC.
Military reform Maria, while maintaining military service for Roman citizens, allowed the recruitment of volunteers who received weapons and salaries from the state. In addition, legionnaires were entitled to a portion of military spoils, and from the 1st century. BC. veterans could receive land in Africa, Gaul and Italy (at the expense of confiscated and free lands). The reform significantly changed the social composition of the army - most of it now came from low-income and disadvantaged sections of the population, whose dissatisfaction with their own situation and the existing order was growing. The army professionalized, turned into a permanent one and became an independent declassed political force, and the commander, on whose success the well-being of the legionnaires depended, became a major political figure.
The first consequences were felt soon. Already in 88 BC. under Sulla, for the first time in Roman history, the army opposed the existing government and overthrew it. For the first time, the Roman army entered Rome, although according to ancient tradition, the carrying of weapons and the appearance of troops in the city was prohibited.
The military organization of the Roman Republic was based on the principle of compulsory and universal conscription of citizens (see § 14). The right to serve in the army - and, consequently, the opportunity to count on a share of military spoils and land plots - was even an honorable right of a citizen. This structure of the army was one of the important guarantees of the subordination of the legions to the popular authorities and magistrates, a guarantee of the inseparability of the army and the Roman community.
At the turn of the 2nd-1st centuries. BC e. The first important shift occurred in the organization of the Roman army. After the Allied Wars and the granting of citizenship rights to the majority of the Italian population, the allies received the right to serve in the legions on an equal basis with the Romans, and soon they began to make up up to 2/3 of all legions. The quantitative increase in those able to serve in the army led to the gradual replacement of compulsory service with voluntary service - based on recruitment, which was carried out by special overseers. A special part of the army began to consist of auxiliary troops recruited from provinces outside Italy. As a result reforms of Gaius Maria (107 BC), caused, among other things, by difficulties with recruitment into the main legions, everyone began to be taken into the Roman army (citizens and non-citizens, including bankrupts and slaves); old licensing principles are a thing of the past. The troops began to be paid increased and regular salaries, and switched to state supplies of weapons and equipment. Although conscription was not formally abolished, a transition to a standing army actually took place.
The final transition to a professional army took place during the period of the Principate. Volunteers were recruited into the legions from among any residents of the empire, citizens and non-citizens. For service, in addition to the usual salary and awards, veterans were given land in the provinces. For a professional army, the commander, the head of the army (especially the successful and generous one) began to be of greater value than, in fact, subordination government agencies authorities. This contributed to the establishment of a regime of personal power and, ultimately, a military monarchy. In addition, under Augustus the army as a whole was divided into territorial (legions in the provinces) and internal. The core of the latter consisted of specially recruited - already, as a rule, from non-Romans - 9 thousandth detachments and horse guards - the so-called cohors pretoria, or praetorians. These selected units, subordinate to Roman officers and the emperor personally, became the main support of his power, sometimes influencing political decisions and the fate of the emperor’s heirs.
Under Emperor Septimius Severus (2nd century), the Praetorians became even more detached from the state organization and the Roman population. They stopped recruiting Italians, and the way was opened for promotions from the provinces to the officer positions of centurions. Soldiers were allowed to marry and live with family outside the camp. The salaries of legionnaires increased significantly; many officers now had significant fortunes and formed special clubs and collegiums that served to unite the army only around the profitable, “soldier emperors.”
Obviously, such an army could not be significant in size and provide new political and military tasks for the empire. Under Diocletian, recruitment of soldiers from the latifundists was introduced; barbarian mercenaries began to be regularly recruited to serve in the Roman army. This contributed, on the one hand, to reconciliation with border peoples and semi-states, and on the other, to the erosion of the military-political unity of the empire. The army became a completely independent force, the organization and actions of which were increasingly moving away from the state administration.
At the beginning of the 4th century. The organization of the army changed even more in the direction of increasing the role of non-Roman mercenaries. A small part of the army (in total from the 3rd century up to 72 legions and 600 thousand soldiers) were citizens of the empire. The majority were mercenaries from the allied peoples (the so-called federals) or from the semi-free population. The barbarization of the army led to the fact that even the praetorian cohorts, the personal guard of the emperor, were recruited from the newcomer population, who had no attachment, other than profit, to Rome and to the tasks of the state. Barbarians began to make up the majority of officers and even senior commanders. Many legions were built in the traditions of organization not of the Roman army, but according to the fighting skills of the allied peoples - mainly the Danube and Germanic tribes. There were often cases when such an army preferred to manifest itself not in military operations, but in resolving political affairs and deposing emperors. Army participation in palace coups became perhaps the most important indicator of the general political crisis of the Roman Empire by the 5th century.
The army became one of the accelerators of the objective collapse of the Roman Empire. At the end of the 4th century. (395) the eastern part became completely isolated under the name of Byzantium, laying the foundation for its own thousand-year statehood (see § 40). The fate of the western part of the empire, centered in Rome, turned out differently.
At the beginning of the 5th century. The Roman Empire began to experience constant pressure from nomadic tribes and Germanic peoples from the north, pushed by the Great Migration of Peoples, which stirred up in the 4th-5th centuries. Asia and Europe. The social crisis within the empire itself and the collapse of the military organization made Rome incapable of real resistance to new forces. In 410, the army of the Visigoth tribe, led by the leader Alaric, destroyed the city, and power in the Western Empire came under the control of the German leaders. The capital of the empire was the small northern Italian city of Ravenna. The empire gradually disintegrated, only Italy and part of the Gallic provinces remained under the rule of the emperors. In 476, the German leader Odoacer dethroned the last Roman emperor, who, by a strange quirk of history, was also named Romulus. The Western Roman Empire and its thousand-year-old statehood ceased to exist.
ALLIED WAR
The death of Drusus clearly showed the Italians that all ways of legally satisfying their demands had been exhausted. The last path remained - uprising. Apparently, even before the murder of Drusus, secret alliances existed among the disenfranchised population of Italy, whose task was to achieve citizenship rights. Now these unions have turned into militant organizations.
The uprising broke out at the end of 91 for an accidental reason and began somewhat prematurely. Praetor Gaius Servilius, having learned that the inhabitants of the city of Asculum in Picenum were exchanging hostages with neighboring communities, came to the city with a small detachment. He addressed the residents gathered in the theater with a defiant speech full of threats. This played the role of a spark falling into a barrel of gunpowder. The crowd here in the theater killed the praetor and his legate, after which all the Romans in the city were killed and their property was plundered.
The Asculans were immediately joined by the mountain tribes of the Marsi, Peligni, Vestini and others. The leading role among them was played by the brave Marsi led by Quintus Poppaedius Silo, a close friend of the late Drusus. The second leader of this northern group was the Picenian Gaius Vidacilius.
Following the example of the northern federation, the southern one was formed, which included the Samnites, Lucans and other tribes of southern Italy with their leaders Gaius Papius Mutilus, Pontius Telesinus and others.
However, before moving on to open hostilities, the leaders of the uprising made a last attempt at reconciliation. They sent a delegation to Rome and promised to lay down their arms if the rebels were given citizenship rights. The Roman government refused. At the suggestion of the tribune Quintus Varius and with the support mainly of the horsemen, a criminal commission was created to deal with cases of high treason. She was entrusted with the investigation of a conspiracy allegedly organized by Drusus, which resulted in an uprising. Investigations and trials began, from which many people who were or were considered supporters of Drusus suffered. At the same time, both hostile camps were energetically preparing for war.
The so-called "Allied" (or "Martian") War was one of the most formidable uprisings that Rome had to deal with throughout its history. The uprising broke out in Italy itself, and its center was in close proximity to Rome. It covered most peninsula, only Umbria and Etruria remained unaffected by the uprising, where the land and monetary aristocracy, which sided with Rome, was strong. In Campania and in the south, only the allied Greek cities remained loyal to the Romans: Nola, Naples, Rhegium, Tarentum, etc. Most of the Latin colonies also did not join the uprising. But compared to the area covered by the movement, this was not much.
The rebel troops totaled about 100 thousand people - the same number as the Romans deployed (not counting the garrisons in the fortresses). At the same time, the Italians were in no way inferior to their opponents in military art and weapons. As for courage, fortitude and devotion to the common cause, in this they were significantly superior to Roman citizenship and auxiliary provincial troops. They had no shortage of talented commanders and experienced officers. We must not forget that the Italics went through the same harsh military school in the allied forces as the Romans, and since the time of Marius, many of them served on an equal basis with citizens and in the legions.
The Italics, who fell away from Rome, created their own state organization, reminiscent of the Roman one. The capital of the general Italian federation was made the city of Corfinium in the Peligni region, in the very center of the uprising. It was called Italy. Here was the government: a Senate of 500 members and officials - 2 consuls and 12 praetors. Apparently, there was also a national assembly, but it is not clear who it consisted of: permanent representatives of the communities that were part of the federation, or from all citizens of the federation, since they could practically gather in Corfinium. The answer to this question (a similar question can be asked in relation to the Senate) would be very important, since it would make it possible to answer another question: whether the representative principle of government was applied in the new Italian federation, or whether it was built according to the old type of federation of policies. The latter seems more likely to us.
The Italic state issued coins according to the Roman model, but with the legend “Italy”. (One of these coins depicts a bull, the totem of the Samnite tribes, trampling a Roman she-wolf.)
The rebel military forces consisted of detachments of individual communities, united in two groups: the northern (Martian), commanded by Poppaedius Silo, and the southern (Samnite) led by Papias Mutilus.
One of Rome's main advantages in this war was that it had an old centralized state organization and old management skills, while the Italian federation was young and decentralized. The war on the part of the Italians often took on the character of a large guerrilla struggle, which had its weaknesses, since the Romans, acting in large military masses, beat the rebels one by one. The territory of the uprising was rarely continuous: it was interspersed with numerous civilian and Latin colonies. The former always, and the latter in most cases, were the support of Rome, and the Italians had to spend a lot of effort and time on their siege. The weakest point of the Italians was their lack of internal unity. The rich and aristocratic strata were drawn to Rome. The Samnite tribes were the most irreconcilable and continued the struggle the longest and most persistently. The lack of unity among the rebels, as we will see below, made it easier for the Romans to crush the movement.
The periodization of the allied war is naturally determined by the course of the uprising: its upward curve falls in the 90th year, its downward curve in the 89th. By 88, the uprising was suppressed in most areas.
The first year of the war was marked by great setbacks for the Romans. Military operations, which began in the winter of 91/90, unfolded on a large scale in the spring and summer. The first target of attack was the Roman fortresses located on the territory of the uprising. It started almost immediately field war. The southern Roman army, under the command of the consul Lucius Julius Caesar (one of his legates was Sulla), operated in Campania and Samnium. At the first attempt at an offensive, the Romans were repulsed by the Samnites with heavy losses. The result of this defeat was the transition to the side of the rebels of the large city of Venafra on the border of Latium and Samnium. This made it easier for the rebels to besiege the fortress-colony of Ezernia in northern Samnium, which capitulated a few months later due to lack of food. The Samnites, led by Mutilus, invaded Campania, which caused a number of Campanian cities to join the movement: Nola, Salerno, Pompeii, Herculaneus, Stabius, etc.
At the same time, military operations took place in the northern theater. The second Roman consul, Publius Rutilius Lupus, operated here. Among his legates were Marius, who had returned from the East, and Gnaeus Pompey Strabo, the father of Gnaeus Pompey, the future rival of Gaius Julius Caesar. In June 90, the Marsi unexpectedly attacked the consul while crossing the river. Tholen in the former region of the Equis. The Romans lost 8 thousand people, including the consul himself. Only Marius, who replaced Lupus as commander-in-chief, managed to improve the dangerous situation that had arisen in the immediate vicinity of Rome.
Strabo was active in Picenum at this time. At first he was defeated and was locked up in the city of Firma. This made it possible for the northern rebel army to transfer part of its forces to the south. Vidacilius invaded Apulia and forced a number of large cities to come over to his side: Venusia, Canusia, etc. Meanwhile, the situation in Picenum improved. The united Roman forces managed to free Strabo and trap the rebels in Asculum.
The Roman failures of the first months of the war were reflected even in the mood of the Umbrian and Etruscan communities: some of them joined the uprising, others hesitated. Panic rumors circulated in Rome. On the occasion of the defeat at Tolen and the death of the consul, officials were clothed in mourning.
The Roman government understood the extreme danger of the situation and decided to make concessions. At the end of 90, consul Julius Caesar passed a law (lex Julia), according to which the right of Roman citizenship was given to residents of those allied communities that had not yet separated from Rome. This law stopped further distribution uprising, influencing positively the wavering Umbrian and Etruscan cities.
Another law, probably adopted at the beginning of 89, created a split among the rebels. At the proposal of the tribunes of the people Marcus Plautius Silvanus and Gaius Papirius Carbo, it was decided that each member of the union community, who within two months submitted an application to the Roman praetor about the desire to become a citizen, received the rights of Roman citizenship (lex Plautia Papiria). True, new citizens were not distributed evenly across all 35 tribes, but were enrolled in only 8 tribes. 1 This significantly diminished their legal capacity, since when voting in the tribunal comitia, new citizens always found themselves in a minority compared to the old citizenship. 2
For Cisalpine Gaul, which in this era was actually not much different from the rest of Italy, the consul of 89 Pompey Strabo passed a special law (lex Pompeia). He gave (or rather, confirmed what was already given by the law of Julius) the right of full Roman citizenship to the Latin colonies located in Cispadan Gaul, and Latin law to the communities lying on the other side of the Po, and the Gallic tribes assigned to them.
Having made the minimum necessary concessions, the Senate fought all the more energetically against those who persisted. The second year of the war was catastrophic for the Italians. Etruria and Umbria quickly calmed down. A large detachment of Mars, 15 thousand people, attempted to break through to the aid of the Etruscans, but was completely defeated by Strabo and almost completely died.
Major operations unfolded around Asculum, which had been besieged by the Romans the previous year. Vidacilius came to the rescue with an army of Piceni. A fierce battle took place under the city walls. The Romans were victorious, but Vidacilius and part of his forces managed to break into the city. The siege resumed. When the situation became hopeless a few months later, Vidacilius ordered the execution of his political opponents, that is, those who supported the agreement with Rome, and then took poison. The city surrendered to the Romans. The commanding staff and all prominent citizens were executed, the rest were expelled from the city.
The fall of Asculus had a fatal impact on the course of the uprising in central Italy. The Northern Federation was completely destroyed. First the Marrucins and Marsi were conquered, then the Vestini and Peligni. "Italy" again turned into a modest Corfinium. After the fall of Corfinius, Poppaedius Silo armed 20 thousand slaves, and the capital of the Italian federation was moved at the beginning of 88 to the city of Ezernia in Samnium. Meanwhile, Roman troops entered Apulia. A detachment of Samnites came to the aid of the Apulians, but after some successes they were defeated; the Romans completely restored their power in Apulia.
In the south, Sulla, who replaced Caesar, acted with great skill and merciless cruelty. His army penetrated into southern Campania. Pompeii, Herculaneus and Stabiae were taken. Sulla moved to Samnium, which was the main stronghold of the movement, and forced the main city of the Samnites, Bovian, to surrender.
By the beginning of 88, the uprising held only in the city of Nola in Campania and in certain areas of Samnium, Lucania and Bruttium. At this difficult moment for them, the rebels entered into relations with the king of the Pontic kingdom, Mithridates VI, who began a war against Rome in Asia Minor. But Mithridates could not provide them with direct assistance, and it was already too late. Although in some places the uprising lasted until 82, it was mostly defeated by 88.
Sulla, elected consul in 88, began the siege of Nola, but at this time major events broke out in Rome that prevented the siege from being completed.
The end of the Allied War and the outbreak of the uprising in the east extremely aggravated all the old contradictions, adding new ones to them. A severe economic crisis broke out in Rome. Many people found themselves in debt, and the creditors were relentless, since the horsemen had lost a lot as a result of the fall of the east and now did not want to make any concessions.
Back in 1989, an incident occurred that showed the extent to which passions ran high. The city praetor Aulus Sempronius Azellion, yielding to the pleas of the debtors, tried to soften their situation by deferring payments. In addition, he renewed the old laws against usury, which in fact had not been observed for a long time. The angry creditors attacked the praetor while he was making a sacrifice in the forum and killed him.
But debtors and creditors were not the only ones in the ranks of the dissatisfied. The Italians also belonged to them, although they received citizenship rights, but were enrolled only in 8 tribes. A significant part of the Italians did not receive any rights at all (these were those rebel communities that refused to submit and submitted only to the force of arms). Maria's veterans, who were still waiting for the land plots promised to them, were also embittered. Marius, who reappeared on the political horizon, failed to truly prove himself in the Allied War and had to give up first place to Sulla.
To all these internal difficulties were added very serious external complications.
(All dates are BC)
Peace treaty of Spurius Cassius 493 BC. (end of the First Latin War) brought Rome into the Latin Union, and over the next 160 years the development of its military system paralleled that of the rest of the Latin states. Livy assures that the military organization of the Latins and Romans was the same at the time when Rome put forward demands for recognition of its dominance in the Union (Second Latin War 340-338 BC)
All Roman citizens from 17 to 45 years of age were considered liable for military service and were included in . Only the poorest population was exempt from military service. Legion (Latin: Legere - to choose, to gather) originally meant the entire Roman army. When the need arose to convene an army, each city century fielded required amount of people. At the end of hostilities, the army disbanded. The warrior was supposed to provide himself with equipment, which led to a wide variety of weapons and armor.
The army was divided into two parts, serving according to age. Veterans, warriors 45-60 years old, formed garrisons, and young ones participated in military campaigns. Only those persons who participated in 20 military campaigns when serving in the infantry or in 10 campaigns when serving in the cavalry were exempted from military service. Evasion from military service was punished very strictly, including sale into slavery.
The entire Roman army was divided into two legions, each of which was subordinate to one of the consuls. The wars waged by the Roman Republic became more and more frequent and gradually ceased to be simple raids, taking on the character of planned military operations. In the 4th century BC. Each consul was already subordinate to two legions, and their total number, accordingly, increased to four. If it was necessary to conduct a military campaign, additional legions could be recruited.
In the second half of the 4th century BC. led to a significant expansion of the contingent from which the army was recruited. Military reform became inevitable. The soldiers were given a salary, against which they were given uniforms, weapons and food. This equalized the position of the haves and have-nots and served as an impetus for the introduction of uniform weapons. Uniform weapons, in turn, made it possible to reorganize the legion, making it more uniform and functional.
From 331, a military tribune stood at the head of each legion. The internal structure of the legion became more complex. Instead of the phalanx adopted by the Etruscans, the legion was built in a new battle formation (possibly adopted from the Samnites), in three lines. The total number of the legion was about 4,500 people.
Structure of the early Republican Roman legion The front line consisted of heavy infantry - hastati(Latin Hastati - spearmen). It consisted of younger warriors, divided by 15 maniples(lat. Manipula- a handful) for 60 - 120 people. Each of the maniples was divided into two centuries under the command centurion, appointed from among the most distinguished warriors. One of the centurions was the eldest and commanded the entire maniple. In addition, each hastati maniple was assigned 20 lightly armed warriors - Levi's or velites, who had a spear and a javelin.
The middle line also consisted of 15 maniples of heavy infantry - principles. But these were already the cream of the army - fighters in their prime.
Artist Andrey Karashchuk The back line consisted of 15 rows, each of which was divided into three parts - vexillas. The best of the veterans stood ahead, . Behind them are young, not so distinguished warriors, roraria, and behind them are the least reliable soldiers, accents. Each of the three vexillas consisted of 60 soldiers, two centurions and a standard bearer - vexillaria, which carried a flag-like standard.
Accents (outside the qualification) were armed only with a sling, which corresponded to the 5th property class under military reform. They had no armor or any other protection.
The Roraria were armed with a spear for close combat and a javelin. They corresponded to the fourth property class of the reform of Servius Tullius. They did not wear armor.
The triarii were armed with spears and swords. Originally from the first property class, they had full defensive weapons.
Artist Andrey Karashchuk In battle, maniples were usually located in a checkerboard pattern - maniples principles covered the gap between hastates, and those were covered by maniples triarii.
In addition to infantry, the legion also included cavalry. Heavy cavalry - equites- was originally the most prestigious branch of the military. The cavalryman himself bought weapons and equipment - a round shield, helmet, armor, sword and spears. The legion consisted of approximately 300 cavalrymen, divided into units - tours- 30 people per team decurion. They were located on the flanks of the legion - five turmas on each. The light cavalry was recruited from less wealthy citizens and young wealthy citizens who were not suitable in age for other units.
Initially, legionnaires were armed with round shields - clypeus. But during (405-392) larger shields were introduced - scutum, reinforced with iron edge. At the same time, the abandonment of the phalanx occurred. The reason for this could be the defeat at the Battle of Allia (390), where the Romans were literally “trodden into the ground.” Much attention began to be paid to issues of troop control and logistics organization. The army began to include one century of clerks and buglers, as well as two centuries of blacksmiths and carpenters, fleets of siege engines and centuries of engineers.
Pilum throwing From that time on, legionnaires began to be paid. A Roman infantryman received two coins a day, a centurion received twice as much, and a horseman received six obols. A Roman infantryman received allowance in the form of 35 liters of grain per month, a horseman - 100 liters of wheat and 350 liters of barley (including food for the horse and groom). A fixed fee for these products was deducted from the salary of both foot and horse warriors. Deductions were also made for clothing and items of equipment requiring replacement.
The main striking weapon of the legionnaire of the new army became a throwing spear - pilum. The triarii, rorarii, and accensi were still common spearmen, but about a third of the entire army advanced, armed with pilums to defeat the approaching enemy.
The battle began with the Levis, who sought to disrupt the enemy's battle formation with the help of light darts. When the opposite side began to attack, the lightly armed warriors retreated into gaps in the line, and the hastati went into battle. First, they threw pilums, and then moved towards the enemy in order to get into hand-to-hand combat. If the hastati were unable to defeat the enemy, they also retreated into the gaps between the detachments of principles. If both lines were defeated, the hastati and principles retreated behind the triarii, who closed the ranks; then the entire army retreated. The old Roman saying “it came down to the triarii” meant that things could not have turned out worse.
While the hastati and principes fought, the triarii dropped to one knee, putting their left leg forward. They leaned their large oval shields against their left shoulders so that they covered them from enemy projectiles. The undercut of the spear was stuck into the ground, and the tip was tilted forward “like a palisade” (Livy). The triarii did not engage in battle until all other parts of the army were defeated. The banners were placed behind the rear line, so that the retreating troops could see which rank they should retreat to.
The Romans suffered defeats more than once during the first 200 years of the republic. The patriotic Livy usually says in such cases that the battle was “prevented by bad weather.” The biggest defeat befell the Romans at the Battle of Allia. Perhaps it was because of this that the legion of the 4th century BC. has a pronounced defensive character. The mobile system of hastati - principles appeared, apparently, in response to the light and mobile armies of the Celts and Samnites. The detachments of spear throwers on the front flank were specially designed to withstand the attack of the Celts.
In addition, the Roman army was strengthened by the so-called “allies” - troops of conquered neighbors who did not have Roman citizenship. The Allies were obliged to provide auxiliary armed forces. Usually, for one Roman legion, the allies fielded 5,000 infantry and 900 horsemen, supported at their own expense. The allied troops lined up on the flanks of the Roman legions in units of 500 people. Such units were called “cohort” (Latin cohors - retinue, string). The cohorts were subordinate to the Roman high command, and the composition of the junior commanders was determined by the allies themselves.
A third of the Allies' best cavalry and a fifth of their best infantry were selected to form a special fighting unit - the extraordinarii. They were a striking force for special assignments and were supposed to cover the legion on the march. The internal organization of the Allied army for this period is not described in the sources, but most likely it was similar to the Roman one, especially among the Latin allies.
Thus, the legion, with its heavy infantry, cavalry, additional allied cavalry, light infantry, siege weapons and engineers, included all branches of the ground forces and was, although cumbersome, a self-sufficient army unit.
It was in this form that the Roman legions entered the period of great wars.
Preparation for military action occupied the most important place in the life of the Romans since ancient times. As you know, war was a regular, everyday activity of the Romans during the period of the disintegration of the tribal system and the genesis of the state. Every spring, an army was recruited from full-fledged community members, which went on a campaign with the aim of plundering booty from neighboring communities and peoples or defending their own territory. During the period of the early Republic, in addition to these causes of war, the desire to expand Rome's land holdings (ager publicus) and establish its hegemony in Latium and Central Italy gradually came to the fore. The summer campaign ended in the fall, when the returning army was disbanded with due ceremonies.
A huge role in all actions related to the war was played by their sacred legal design. The army embodied the sovereignty and guarantee of the well-being and security of the community, personified its power as a whole in the face of a hostile world. Consequently, its functioning and results of its activities were obliged to be considered as fair and legal, which justified the inevitable cruelty in the eyes of not only the surrounding tribes, but also the gods who bestowed their favor on the Romans. Therefore, from the early stages of the development of the Roman community, the concept of a “legal war” (bellum iustum) was formed, that is, one that occurred in compliance with all necessary legal procedures (Barnes, 1986, pp. 40-59; Sini, 1991, pp. 189 -199), and since
157
The line between sacred and public law was still too blurred, it is not surprising that the mentioned procedures objectively took the form of sacred rituals and rites. These include the procedure for declaring war, the observance of which was in charge of a special college of fetials (Sabatucci, 1988; Penella, 1987. P. 233-237; Mayorova, 2001. P. 142-179), established by Numa Pompilius, and the organization of military recruitment, vital role in which lustration played a role (see: Melnichuk, 2002b), and sacred ceremonies associated with the awakening of divine powers and entrusting recruited troops to them, and much more.
Over the centuries, a system of legal relations between the Roman military organization and the civilian community developed. On the one hand, the army was, as it were, a continuation of the political and social system, and military service, at least until the reform of Gaius Marius at the end of the 2nd century. BC e. was the right and obligation of all full citizens (see Mayak, 1996; 1998 b). On the other hand, the army as an armed force opposed the civilian collective in that it was subject not to law, but to military discipline.
Even T. Mommsen expressed an opinion about the fundamental difference between civil and military law. Mommsen believed that in civil law the law was in force, and in military law it was the ax and the fasces, that is, the sole and unlimited power of the military leader (Mommsen, 1936, pp. 246 et seq.). Thus, Mommsen, and after him modern researchers, based Roman military discipline primarily on fear and coercion.
Development of military law and the archaic era
As a rule, in historiography, military discipline is considered as a kind of universal given, independent of the level of development of the military organization and separated from the evolution of the Roman constitution. Therefore, historians often draw parallels between the relationship between soldiers and commanders, troops and the civilian community during the period of the early Republic until the reforms of Gaius Marius and the high discipline of the professional army of the late Republic. But let us take into account that the latter was based on clear legal norms, and the soldier was considered as a kind of object of law. More
158
Polybius describes the relationship between soldiers and commanders in the Roman army in the first half of the 2nd century. BC e. as based on legal principles with a fairly clear definition of the duties of soldiers and the prerogatives of commanders, as well as with a full range of offenses and corresponding punishments, the procedure for applying which was almost identical to civil criminal proceedings, adjusted for military specifics.
During the period of the empire, the historian and jurist Lucius Cincius actively developed the theory of military law, leaving work in at least six books entitled “De re militari”. Unfortunately, it has not survived, and only numerous but meager quotations from Gellius, Festus and Macrobius have reached us. In its final form, the legal system of the relationship between the state and the warrior, the commander and the soldier developed during the era of the empire in the laws of Trajan, Septimius Severus and was brought together in the 16th title of section XLIX of the Digest, also known as “De re militari”. However, the origins of military discipline lie in the archaic period.
For example, in the Digests it is recorded that “whoever has done something prohibited by the commander or failed to carry out his orders is punishable by death even if his action had favorable consequences” (D. 49. 16. 3. 15). But such sanctions are reflected in reports from the written tradition about cases of execution in the 5th-4th centuries. BC e. consuls even their sons for violating the ban on leaving the battle formation and entering battle without orders. In 432 BC. e. The dictator Aulus Postumius ordered his victorious son to be flogged and beheaded in front of the formation because he, without an order, “left his place, carried away by the opportunity to distinguish himself in battle” (Liv. IV. 29). In 340 BC. e. a similar act was committed by the consul Titus Manlius Imperiosus (Liv. VIII. 7). He ordered his son to be beheaded in front of the line of soldiers for a horse duel with the chief of the Tusculan horsemen, Geminus Mescius, who was killed, and his armor was thrown by the winner at the feet of his father-consul. Moreover, in both cases it was about punishing commanders for successful battles, but committed without the order of the highest military commander.
What is striking is the remark of Livy, uttered by Titus Manlius, that his son, “not respecting either the consular empire or the father’s authority, contrary to the ban, without orders, fought with the enemy and thus ...
159
tore away obedience in the army, on which the Roman state was based until now, and put me before a choice: forget either about the state, or about myself and our loved ones, then it would be better if we were punished for our action (in Livy: “misdemeanor”, delictum. - V.T.), with which the state will atone for our sins at a high price...” (Liv. VIII. 7. 15-17). And then Livy puts into the mouth of the consul Manlius a characteristic maxim that it was necessary either with the death of his son “to consolidate the sacred power (of the empire) of the consul in the war, or to undermine it forever, leaving... unpunished.” By the way, although “Manliev’s rule” caused shock and curses among the soldiers, but, according to the same Livy, “such a cruel punishment made the army more obedient to the leader; Everywhere they began to carry out guard and patrol duty more carefully and change sentries, and in the decisive battle, when they came face to face with the enemy, this severity of Manlius also turned out to be beneficial” (Liv. VIII. 8). Thus, in these passages two aspects are revealed that go beyond the scope of military discipline itself, but turn out to be its basis. This is a demonstration of the “father’s power” and the maintenance of the sovereignty of the consul’s empire as the most important instrument for regulating military discipline.
However, the above examples of commanders executing their sons-commanders indicate, in my opinion, not the cruelty of discipline in the army of the early Republic, but, on the contrary, its legal underdevelopment (see: Skripilev, 1949, pp. 178 et seq.). Indeed, despite the harsh reprisal of Titus Manlius against his son Mark, soon another head of the cavalry detachment fought again without permission. We are talking about the commander of the cavalry, Marcus Fabius. According to Livy, in 325 BC. e., when the dictator Lucius Papirius Cursor was absent from the army on the occasion of state auspices, Fabius entered into battle with the Samnites and brilliantly won it, capturing huge booty and many trophies (Liv. VIII. 30-35). And here the dictator’s accusation against him was based not so much on a violation of discipline as such, but on an encroachment on the dictator’s empire and the will of the gods, which determined the hierarchy of magistrates.
This position is clearly formulated by Livy in the accusatory speech of Postumius (Liv. VIII. 32. 4-7): “If I knew that I went on a campaign with dubious auspices, then should I, with the uncertainty in the signs, endanger the state or myself?
160
Should I repeat the bird fortune-telling in order to do nothing without being sure of the will of the gods?.. And you, trampling on my power, with unreliable fortune-telling, with unclear signs, had the audacity, contrary to the military custom bequeathed to us from our ancestors, contrary to the will of the gods, to fight the enemy! » Thus, the dictator appeals to the violation of: a) his empire; b) state sacred auspices; and therefore, c) to an insult to the gods, whose will determined all the actions of military leaders and troops. As we see, in the first place in military discipline is, of course, the imperium, then the auspices, and all this rests on a solid sacred foundation mores maiorum. In other words, in the archaic legal mentality of the Romans, military discipline turns out to be in close connection with the sacred and constitutional foundations of civitas.
This is confirmed by the following maxim of the dictator Postumius as presented by Livy: “As soon as military discipline is violated, the warrior no longer obeys the order of the centurion, the centurion does not obey the tribune, the tribune does not obey the legate, the legate does not obey the consul, the commander of the cavalry does not obey the dictator, how respect for people and veneration disappears.” gods, as they do not obey either the decrees of the leader or the orders of the priest; warriors roam without permission in both pacified and hostile lands; having forgotten about the oath (sacramentum), at their own discretion, they leave the service whenever they want; they abandon orphaned banners and do not run when they are told; and they do not discern whether they are fighting during the day or at night, in the right place or in the wrong place, with or without the order of a military leader, they do not wait for a sign, do not observe ranks, and at the place of military service, consecrated by custom and oath (pro sollemni et sacrata militia), turns out to be a semblance of robbery, blind and disorderly” (Liv. VIII. 7-10).
Before us is a kind of manifesto of Roman military discipline, which takes on the features of sacred service and suggests that by discipline the Romans understood not only military art as such and not so much the routine of a warrior’s actions in the ranks. The essence, the core of military discipline in the archaic period was the definition and sanctification of the relationship of the warrior with society as a whole, his subordination to the legal and sacred institutions of the community and, above all, the empire of the military leader.
Military empires and the power of the warlord
Cicero gives the empire a universal and cosmic force, comparing it with the supreme law (fas) (Cic. Leg. III. 1. 2-3). D. Cohen
161
It is not unreasonable to trace the connection between empire and the primitive “mana”, the belief that it endows a person with supernatural power (Cohen, 1957. P. 307, 316 f.; Palmer, 1970. P. 210).
Based on this, the Roman empire (imperium, from impero - “command”) can be interpreted as a magical power that is transmitted from the gods to the leader, so that with its help he can lead his people to prosperity and his army to victories (Meyer Ernst. 1948. S. 109; Mazzarino, 1945. P. 63 f.). It embodied the power of the entire community, its prosperity.
After the overthrow of the kings, the form and content of the powers of the magistrates (potestas) changed, but not the essence and quality of the empire. Only its validity was limited to one year (Cic. Resp. II. 31. 53; D. 1. 2. 16). The second most important restriction on the empire in the era of the republic was the right of provocation according to the laws of Valerius Poplicola of 509 BC. e. and Valeria-Horace 449 BC. e. (D. 48. 6. 7; Ulp. De off. procons. VIII. 2202). But it only operated within the city limits. Hence the passionate desire of the consuls and the Senate to quickly withdraw troops from the city. Let us note that dictators were free from submission to provocation even in Rome itself (Liv. II. 18. 8; Zonar. VII. 13; D. 1. 2. 18). Unlike consuls, dictators are traditionally never subjected to prosecution for poor leadership after the addition of an empire, which emphasizes the sacred nature of their power.
The empire was considered the property of all citizens and only temporarily passed to the magistrate. The single and indivisible empire, as is known, was entrusted with a special curiata law on the empire (lex curiata de imperio) only to kings and high magistrates - consuls and dictators, as well as consular tribunes, in other words, military leaders (Cic. Leg. III. 3. 6 -9; see for more details: Smorchkov, 2003. pp. 24-39). Moreover, if the consuls had equal power (potestas), then the highest empire (imperium summum) in each this moment was in the hands of only one of the consuls. Cicero summarized the scope of the imperium: “Let the bearers of the imperium, the bearers of power (potestas) and the legates - after the decision of the Senate and the command of the people - leave the City, wage just wars justly, protect the allies, be self-controlled and restrain their own; may they magnify the glory of the people and return home with honor. Let all magistrates have the right of auspices and judicial power, and let them constitute the senate” (Cic. Leg. III. 3. 9).
162
Military empires included the following rights: recruit troops, appoint military commanders, wage a war, conclude a truce, distribute booty, receive a triumph, and also perform military auspices (ius auspicandi) (for more details, see: Tokmakov, 1997. P. 47-48; 2000. P. 139 etc.). And this, perhaps, was considered the main thing. After all, formally, military command was carried out by the will of the deities, and the consul acted only as an intermediary and implementer of this will.
Auspices consisted of observing the flight of birds and divining the entrails of animals. At the same time, it was necessary to carefully observe the once and for all established ritual, even if over time it became incomprehensible to the performers themselves. The hidden meaning of rituals, the meaning of verbal formulas, the names of non-personified or chthonic deities could be forgotten, but tradition had to be observed, because any deviation from it entailed the danger of discontent or anger on the part of the missed gods.
The auspices themselves, in the sacred legal views of the Romans, were public acts of transmitting the will of the gods through the imperium, a bearer endowed with the corresponding revelation (Smorchkov, 2003.
pp. 24-26). To some extent, they freed the magistrate from responsibility for the outcome of the event, but at the same time increased the requirements for his competence in interpreting signs. Therefore, there were often cases when incorrectly carried out auspices threatened the re-election of consuls or influenced the course of a military campaign (as in the case of Postumius). And such competence, according to the Romans, until the 4th century. BC e. possessed only by members of the original, sacred curiat organization, i.e., patricians.
The consul ceded some rights to his subordinates, but only in compliance with all sacred procedures, which in the archaic period acted as a type of legal acts. Consequently, violation of the order, according to the views of the Romans, was considered not just as an offense, but as an encroachment on the sacred empire of the consul and on the divine auspices, in other words, on the interpretation of the will of the gods, which was manifested in sacred signs.
So, carrying out even a successful battle by a commander who did not have the right of auspices, without performing auspices, with unfavorable auspices, or contrary to the order of a person endowed with an empire based on higher auspices, meant in the sacred legal tradition of the Romans disobedience to the supreme leaders of the warriors.
163
heavenly powers - to the gods. It becomes clear that for the representative of the divine forces in the army, i.e. for the military leader of the Sith imperio, it was necessary to atone for the committed sacrilege as soon as possible, without waiting for God's punishment. And the result of sacrilege, perhaps beneficial for the Romans, or family feelings no longer played a role.
With the development of public law, this sacred-legal archaic norm was modified into a purely legal one. Moreover, the sacred aspects of the violation are no longer mentioned. Let us note that this purely Roman principle (we do not find anything similar in Greece) formed the basis of military law and military regulations in Europe for two thousand years to come.
The imperium endowed its bearer with supreme power and authority over the life and death of his subordinates (right coercio et iudicatio) (Cic. Leg. III. 3. 6; D. 1. 2. 18). This right found its outward expression in announcers’ fascias with axes. In its universal form it can be found in the same Digests. They say that “whoever leaves a forward post (exploratione emanet) or leaves a ditch in the face of an advancing enemy (i.e. in a combat situation) must be subject to the death penalty” (D. 49. 16. 3. 4) ; and in another place a similar sin is interpreted more mildly: “Whoever leaves the ranks is either punished with canes or transferred to another unit, depending on the circumstances” (Ibid. 3. 16). But two centuries before the compilation of the Digest, Livy also formulated in the form of a legal norm, which quite likely already actually existed in the archaic era, that “he who flees from the battlefield or leaves his post deserves beating with sticks to death (!)” ( Liv. V. 6. 4).
Polybius describes the procedure for such punishment for the 2nd century. BC e. Those guilty of sleeping at a post while guarding the camp were punished with canes by decision of the council of tribunes of the legion. It is curious that during the investigation a kind of judicial procedure is followed: both the accused guards and the centurion of the inspection patrol, who calls his companions as witnesses, give their testimony (Polyb. VI. 36. 8-9). The decision, as we see, is made collectively by the council of tribunes, and not individually by the commander, as in the early Republic. Punishment, Polybius reports (VI. 37. 2-4), is carried out as follows: the tribune takes a stick and, as it were, just touches the condemned person with it, and after this all the legionnaires beat him with sticks and stones (something “to the point of pain” reminiscent of punishment with spitzrutens in Russian
164
army of the 19th century). If any of the punished remain alive, then he is deprived of fire and water; he is prohibited from returning home, and his relatives are prohibited from taking him into their home. In other words, the sanctions are identical to a civil court verdict. The system of maintaining discipline in the description of Polybius is based on the personal responsibility of the superior of each rank for the misdeeds of his subordinates (VI. 37. 5-6).
One of the extreme manifestations of the right to punish soldiers was decimation, or the execution of every tenth soldier by lot in the event of a shameful flight of soldiers from the battlefield. Polybius speaks of merciless punishment with sticks of those on whom the lot fell, and of penalties against the rest in the form of replacing wheat with barley in the diet and removing their tents from the ramparts of the camp (Polyb. VI. 38. 2-4). But decimation dates back to the era of the early Republic. The first of them, according to tradition, was produced in 471 BC. e. consul Appius Claudius (Liv. II. 59; Dionys. IX. 50). Moreover, Frontin (Frontin. IV. 1. 33) clarifies that Claudius personally killed every tenth person with a club. Consequently, the decimations of the archaic era appear more likely to be the reprisal of unbridled leaders according to ancient customs, rather than a legal act. Also at the beginning of the 4th century. BC e. Marcus Furius Camillus executed the soldiers who fled from under the walls of the city of Veii (Liv. V. 19.4).
Decimation undoubtedly had its source in the already mentioned sacred norms and taboos: with such a kind of sacrifice of warriors, defiled by violation of the will of the gods, they sought to atone for the shame of defeat and restore the strength of the army. Therefore, initially only a commander endowed with an empire could carry out such a decimation. Only over time was this arbitrariness formalized in public law as the right to summon the offender (ius prensionis) and the right to arrest (ius vocationis). This is the difference between the archaic sacred decimation and the secular legal procedure of punishment of the times of Polybius, which was led by a military tribune, combining the functions of a judge and an executor. I note that the severity and exclusivity of punishments during the period of the early Republic (which caused their recording in the annals of history) rather testifies to the weakness of military discipline itself at that time and to the fact that the process of legal formalization of the principles of the relationship between soldiers and military leaders as subjects or parties of law is still just began with the genesis
165
som Roman civitas, during a period when the concepts of “warrior” and “citizen” practically coincided.
The above-mentioned complete and unconditional subordination of soldiers to the authority of the military leader in early Rome had its origin in the fact that, from a legal point of view, a warrior in a field army was, as it were, alienated from civil rights, ceased to be a member of the community and completely fell under the authority of the patron-commander. As a member of the community, the citizen was under the protection of laws, the national assembly, of which he was a full participant, as well as under the protection of customary law and sacred cults. Evidence of this is the mentioned right of provocation. But, going on a campaign, the Romans crossed the border of Rome, and this marked their transformation from law-abiding and pious citizens, which they were supposed to be inside the pomerium, into robbers, rapists and murderers filled with malice. And in this sense, the warriors seemed to be taboo, and the civilian community distanced itself from the actions of its members, stained with blood, clearly opposing itself to the military organization. And the connecting link between them remained only the magistrate, endowed with the empire.
The restriction of civil rights is confirmed by the closure of courts during the military campaign, the absence of meetings in the army, the right of provocation (Cic. Leg. III. 6; Liv. III. 20.7) and cases of soldiers sent to distant garrisons who had already ceased to associate with the enemy going over to the side of the enemy. himself with the Roman community. Let's add here regular comparisons in the sources of military service with slavery (Liv. II. 23. 2; IV. 5. 2; V. 2.4-12). Is this why in the first two centuries of the republic riots and uprisings broke out so often among the troops (see topic 7, paragraph 3)?
All this was typical for the period of formation of the Roman patrician-plebeian state, when we do not find in the reports of sources either complete obedience or high military discipline as conscious and mediated by legal norms of behavior of soldiers and commanders (see topic 12).
Rituals of preparation for war in early Rome
Undoubtedly, the transition of community citizens to the state of “non-citizen” warriors, especially taking place annually, could not do without sacred cleansing (lustration). The word itself comes from the verb luo (“to cleanse, liberate, redeem”). In other words,
166
it represented the cleansing of soldiers from the taint of bloodshed and at the same time atoned for the violation of the “divine peace” (see also: Melnichuk, 2002. pp. 73-87). Since the time of Servius Tullius, lustration with the sacrifice of a boar, ram and bull (Liv. I. 44. 2; Dionys.
IV. 22. 1-2) and carrying out auspices were carried out after each qualification and annually after the review of the recruited troops on the Campus Martius before their departure on the campaign.
The complex of rituals of militarized lustration also included numerous religious holidays dating back centuries and associated with the curiat-tribal system. They began with a horse ritual on February 28, dedicated to Mars Gradiv - Equiria. Mars himself on a chariot leads these races (Ovid. Fast. II. 860-861), which indicates the deep antiquity of the ritual of deification of horse and rider (Mayak, 1983. P. 116; Shtaerman, 1978. P. 58). The remaining festivities that open March - the month of preparation for the military campaign - are also mainly associated with Mars and one of the most ancient priestly colleges - the Salii (for more details, see: Tokmakov, 1997a; 2001).
The Salii are called in the sources the guardians and guardians of the sacred shield of Mars Gradiv, which, according to legend, fell from the sky during the reign of Numa Pompilius (late 8th century BC). To commemorate the miracle, by order of the king, the legendary blacksmith Veturius Mamurius forged 11 more shields, identical to the one that fell from the sky in shape and all appearance, in order to hide the real one among them and thereby protect it from the danger of kidnapping. Shields with a rounded curved shape (like the number 8) were called ancilia. For this Veturius Mamurius salii were honored in their songs (Dionys. II. 70. Plut. Numa. 13. 11; Ovid. Fast. III. 389-392). Among the objects of the Salii cult one can find Janus, Jupiter, and Minerva, as well as Lars, Penates and whole line chthonic deities, which subsequently died out and became archaic and incomprehensible even to the ancient authors themselves.
The sacred rituals of the Salii consisted of solemn processions of members of this college through the entire city. The first procession is noted in the sources on March 1, a day after Equirium. According to John Lyd (Ioan. Lyd. Mens. IV. 49), on March 15, the procession and dancing of the Salii took place again. These saliya dances were performed with weapons, which consisted of a copper breastplate over a tunic embroidered in purple, a copper belt on the hips, a copper helmet, a sword and a spear in the right
167
hand (Plut. Numa. 13; Dionys. II. 70. 2; Liv. I. 20. 4). According to other sources, it was a rod or stick, similar to a spear, with knobs on both ends. During the processions, the salii struck the sacred shields of the ancilia, which were the most important attribute of their rituals. Thus, they clearly demonstrated the safety of the shields, the readiness of the community to renew the treaty with Mars and encourage him to lead a loyal army. And the dances of the Salii themselves belong to the rituals of awakening the divine forces associated with war. For the same purpose, to attract the attention of the deities, “sacred trumpeters” (tubicines sacrorum) performed in front of the salii.
The Salii performed rituals throughout March (Polyb. XXI. 13.12). Thus, during the festivities of March 9, 14 (Mamuralia) and March 17 (Agonalia), salii with weapons and accompanied by a choir descended in a procession with dances and songs from the Palatine to the Forum, and then walked around Rome along the perimeter of the ancient pomerium. Moreover, this was not just a procession. Servius reports that they walked around the altars (Serv. Ad Aen. VIII. 285). One of them can be considered the altar of Hercules Ara Maxima near the Forum, the other is the altar of Janus. Undoubtedly, there were altars of other ancient tribal gods that marked the sacred boundaries of the city during the time of Septimontius. This circumambulation was a type of magic circle. Along the route of the Salii, luxurious feasts were held, the abundance of which over time became a proverb among the Romans.
On March 19, the Salii took part in the festival of Quinquatrus (Fest. P. 305 L; Ovid. III. 809-847), dedicated to Minerva. During this festival, at the Comitia, in the presence of the Pontifex Maximus and the tribune celeri, the salii performed their ritual leaps (as is clear from the Fast). At the same time, sacred cleansing of weapons was carried out, but perhaps only ancilium. On March 23, the salii were the main characters in the final March sacred rite of “cleaning the pipes” (Tubilustrum) (Varro. LL. VI. 14; Fest. P. 480 L; Ovid. Fast. III. 849-850), which marked the final preparation the Roman community to war, and its troops recruited by that time to go on a campaign. The presence of salii (and certainly with ancilii) during the mandatory lustration of troops was also recorded. There is also indirect evidence that the Salii took part in ceremonies and cults even after the March deadline, in particular, in the Regifugia rite on February 24 and in the cults of the Arval brothers.
168
During the military review on the Champ de Mars, warriors in centuries made solemn oaths and vows to the gods. The addressees of these oaths are again Mars Gradiv (Liv. II. 45. 14), the patroness of youth of military age Juno Sororia (Liv. I. 20. 4) and Jupiter Feretrius (Fest. R. 204 L), as well as Janus as god of the Roman frontiers and patron of their defenders. Apparently, it was Mars who symbolized the military empire of the military leader. It is not for nothing that before setting off on a campaign, the king (and then the consul) entered Regia, where the sacred spear of Mars was kept (Cic. De div. I. 17; Plut. Rom. 29. 1; Clem. Alex. Protr. IV. 4. P. 35, 23 st.) and ancestral shields, and set them in motion with the words: “Mars, watch out!” (Serv. Ad Aen. VIII. 3). (By the way, the spontaneous vibration of the spear of Mars was considered an omen of war or natural disasters - Liv. XXII. 1. 11; XL. 19. 2.) The rites of lustration themselves, with the quaestors bringing out of the Region shields-ancilia and sacred banners of vexillas, marked the departure of Mars on a campaign together with the army. This increased the importance of the ritual side of these procedures and the requirements for the person responsible for their correctness.
The supreme leaders of the army are Jupiter and Mars (Liv. II. 45. 14). Even Romulus (who himself was considered the son of Mars and was deified under the name of “peaceful Mars” - Quirinus, see: Serv. Ad Aen. III. 35; VI. 895), according to legend, established a sanctuary to Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitol on the site of the ancient refuge (“To the One Who Brings Victory”) (Liv. I. 10. 6-7). However, the promotion of Jupiter to the fore still occurs in the late royal period, during the reign of the so-called “Etruscan” dynasty, when a temple was built on the Capitol under Tarquinius to Proud Jupiter, Juno and Minerva (Liv. I. 53. 3; Dionys. IV. 43 .2).
It was Mars who acted as the original patron of warriors and a symbol of the power of the community, especially in the form of Mars Gradiv (“He who marches [to battle]”). At first it was the god of all living things, the productive forces of nature with a pronounced masculine, creative principle, which explains his worship in the agricultural cult of the archaic college of the Arval brothers (Shtaerman, 1987, pp. 65-67). Since the time of the Republic, Mars acted as the patron of warriors, the guardian of the boundaries of the community and the symbol of its military power (Smorchkov, 2001, p. 232 et seq.; Sini, 1991, p. 215).
169
It is characteristic that the annual circle of military rituals ended in October at the end of the campaign with the sacrifice of a horse’s head to Mars after the horse games (October equus) (Ovid. Fast. IV. 231-234; Fest. P. 190 L). The return of the warriors given over to the power of the gods and the consular empire was also accompanied by religious ceremonies. They were embodied in the rite of purification of weapons - Armilustrum (October 19) (Varro. LL. VI. 22; V. 153; Fest. P. 17L; Ioan. Lyd. Mens. IV. 34). On that day, the warriors returning to the city, defiled by the shed blood, passed by the altar of Janus and under the “Sister Beam”, where they were cleansed of the taint of murder and returned again to the bosom of peaceful citizenship.
According to legend, during the reign of Tullus Hostilius and the war with Alba Longa, Horace, who won the duel and returned to Rome, stabbed with a sword his sister, who was engaged to one of the Curiatii and dared to express her grief. To atone for Horace’s guilt, the “Sister Beam” (Sororum tigillum) was installed at the entrance to Rome. R. Palmer rightly connects this custom with the period of dominance of the curiat system (Palmer, 1970, pp. 137, 185). The altar of Janus Curiatius was located near the sanctuary of Juno Sororia (Dionys. III. 22. 5). Very early his cult was united with the cult of Quirinus (Ianus Quirinus - Serv. Ad Aen. VII. 610). In the Salian hymn, Janus is called the “god of gods” and the “good creator” (Macrob. Sat. I. 9. 14-18). The inclusion of Janus in the formula for declaring war by the fetials along with Jupiter is characteristic (Liv. I. 32. 6-7; 10).
So, in Rome a whole complex of rituals, rites and religious taboos developed, associated with the community’s preparations for annual military operations and rooted in the depths of primitiveness and the tribal system. The whole life of a Roman was permeated with sacred norms, even when divine law (fas) began to be supplanted from socio-political practice by human law (ius). The Romans treated their military organization with immense awe and reverence, considering it not only as a guarantee of the power and prosperity of the civitas, but also as a divine institution, under the close protection of the gods and their direct guidance. Therefore, everything related to the structure, functioning and management of military
170
forces, acquired a bright religious overtones, and people acted not so much as creators of victories, but as executors of the highest will of the gods. Hence such increased attention to the ritual side of troop training, its organization, maintaining discipline and conducting a military campaign.
Prepared according to the edition:
Tokmakov V. N.Army and state in Rome: from the era of kings to the Punic Wars: tutorial/ V. N. Tokmakov. - M.: KDU, 2007. - 264 p.
ISBN 978-5-98227-147-1
© Tokmakov V. N., 2007
© KDU Publishing House, 2007
Those who were selected for service in the foot army were divided into tribes. From each tribe, four people of approximately the same age and build were selected and presented before the stands. The tribune of the first legion was chosen first, then the second and third; the fourth legion received the remainder. In the next group of four recruits, the tribune soldier of the second legion chose first, and the first legion took the last. The procedure continued until 4,200 men were recruited for each legion. In case of a dangerous situation, the number of soldiers could be increased to five thousand. It should be pointed out that in another place Polybius says that the legion consisted of four thousand foot soldiers and two hundred horsemen, and this number could increase to five thousand foot soldiers and three hundred horse legionnaires. It would be unfair to say that he contradicts himself - most likely these are approximate data.
The recruitment was completed, and the newcomers took an oath. The tribunes chose one man who had to step forward and swear to obey his commanders and carry out their orders to the best of his ability. Then everyone else also took a step forward and vowed to do the same as him (“Idem in me”). Then the tribunes indicated the place and date of assembly for each legion so that everyone was distributed to their units.
While recruits were being recruited, the consuls sent orders to the allies, indicating the number of troops required from them, as well as the day and place of the meeting. Local magistrates recruited recruits and swore them in - just as in Rome. Then they appointed a commander and a paymaster and gave the order to march.
Upon arrival at the appointed place, the recruits were again divided into groups according to their wealth and age. In each legion, consisting of four thousand two hundred people, the youngest and poorest became lightly armed warriors - velites. There were one thousand two hundred of them. Of the remaining three thousand, those younger formed the first line of heavy infantry - 1,200 hastati; those who were in full bloom became principles, there were also 1,200 of them. The older ones formed the third line of the battle order - the triarii (they were also called saws). There were 600 of them, and no matter what size the legion was, there were always six hundred triarii left. The number of people in other units could increase proportionally.
From each type of army (with the exception of the velites), the tribunes elected ten centurions, who, in turn, elected ten more people, who were also called centurions. The centurion elected by the tribunes was the eldest. The very first centurion of the legion (primus pilus) had the right to participate in the council of war along with the tribunes. Centurions were chosen based on their stamina and courage. Each centurion appointed himself an assistant (optio). Polybius calls them “uragas,” equating them to “those who bring up the rear” of the Greek army.
The tribunes and centurions divided each type of army (hastati, principes and triarii) into ten maniple detachments, which were numbered from one to ten. Velites were distributed equally among all maniples. The first maniple of the triarii was commanded by Primipilus, the senior centurion.
