The Roman Army is the generic term for the armed forces deployed by the kingdom of Rome (to ca. 500 BC), the Roman Republic (500-31 BC), the Roman Empire (31 BC - AD 476) and its successor, the Byzantine empire (476-1453). It is thus a term that spans approximately 2,000 years, during which the Roman armed forces underwent numerous permutations in composition, organisation, equipment and tactics, while conserving a core of lasting traditions.
In terms of its development, the Roman army can be divided into the following 6 broad phases:
- The Early Roman army of the regal era and of the early Republic (to ca. 300 BC). During this period, it has been suggested that the Roman army followed Etruscan or Greek models of organisation and equipment. The early Roman army was based on an annual levy or conscription of part-time soldiers, hence the term legion for the basic Roman military unit (derived from legere, "to levy").
- The Roman republican army or "Polybian army" (named after the Greek historian Polybius, who provides the most detailed extant description of this phase) of the mid-Republican period (ca. 300-88 BC). During this period, the Romans, while maintaining the levy system, adopted the Samnite manipular organisation for their legions and also bound all the other peninsular Italian states into a permanent military alliance (see Socii). The latter would provide an equal number of levies to the Roman ones, organised in units called alae, which campaigned alongside the Roman legions.
- The Roman imperial army (88 BC to AD 284), when the Republican system of part-time levies was replaced by a full-time professional army of mainly volunteers. The legions, now almost entirely large heavy infantry formations of 5,000-6,000 men) were still open only to Roman citizens (i.e. mainly the inhabitants of Italy and Roman colonies until AD 212). They were now flanked by the auxilia, a corps recruited mainly from peregrini, imperial subjects who did not hold Roman citizenship (the great majority of the empire's inhabitants until 212, when all were granted citizenship). The auxilia were divided into much smaller formations of roughly cohort size (ca. 500 men). These contained not only heavy infantry as the legions, but also light infantry, heavy and light cavalry, archers and slingers. Both legions and auxilia regiments were mostly stationed along the empire's borders.
- The Late Roman army (284-476 and its continuation, in the surviving eastern half of the empire, as the East Roman army to 641). In this phase, crystalised by the reforms of the emperor Diocletian (ruled 284-305), the Roman army returned to systematic conscription for most of its recruitment of citizens, while admitting large numbers of non-citizen barbarian volunteers. However, the army remained full-time professional and did not return to the short-term levies of the Republic. The old dual organisation of legions and auxilia was abandoned, with citizens and non-citizens now serving in the same units. The old legions were broken up into cohort or even smaller sizes. At the same a substantial proportion of the army's effectives were stationed in the interior of the empire, in the form of comitatus praesentales, armies that escorted the emperors.
- The Byzantine army (641-1071), is the army of the Byzantine state in its classical form (i.e. after the permanent loss of its Near Eastern and North African territories to the Arab conquests after 641). This army was based on conscription of professional troops in the
themes structure characteristic of this period. - The Komnenian Byzantine army, named after the Comneni dynasty, or medieval Byzantine army (1071-1453). This was the army of Byzantium after the permanent loss of its traditional main recruiting ground of Anatolia to the Turks following the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. This army was chracterised by a large number of mercenary regiments composed of troops of foreign origin such as the Varangian Guard of Anglo-Saxons. However, the old theme-based system of conscription continued.
This article describes some broad features of the phases above, and their interaction with the political and social development of the Roman state. Readers seeking detailed information on each phase should consult the linked dedicated article (if it exists), and related articles including:
Contents |
Early Roman army (to ca. 300 BC)
The early Roman army is shrouded by lack of evidence. Ancient historians' accounts of the history of Rome before it was destroyed by the Gauls in 386 BC (390 by Roman reckoning) are regarded as highly unreliable by modern historians. Livy, the main surviving ancient source on the early period, himself admits that the pre-386 period is very obscure and that his own account is based on legend rather than written documentation, as the few written documents that did exist in the earlier period were mostly lost in the Gallic fire.[1] There is a tendency among ancient authors to create anachronisms.
Most relevant to the army is the centuriate organisation of the Roman citizen body ascribed to king Servius Tullius (conventional rule 578-535 BC). Scholars agree that this cannot have been established by Servius in the form described by Livy in book I.43. His centuriae were supposedly designed to organise the military levy, but would have resulted in the majority of the total levy being raised from the two top property classes, which were also the smallest numerically, a result that is clearly nonsensical. Instead, the reform must date from much later, certainly after 400 BC and probably after 300 BC. (Indeed, it has even been suggested that the centuriate organisation was not introduced before the Second Punic War and the currency reform of 211 BC. The sextantal as, the denomination used by Livy to define the centuriate property thresholds, did not exist until then. But this argument is regarded as weak by some historians, as Livy may simply have converted older values).[2]
Politico-social history
According to Roman legend, Rome was founded by Romulus in 753 BC. However, the vast amount of archaeological evidence uncovered since the 1970s suggests that Rome did not assume the characteristics of a united city-state (as opposed to a group of separate hilltop settlements) before around 625 BC. The same evidence, however, has also conclusively discredited A. Alfoldi's once-fashionable theory that Rome was an insignificant settlement until ca. 500 BC (and that, consequently, the Republic was not established before ca. 450 BC). There is now no doubt that Rome was a major city in the period 625-500 BC, when it had an area of ca. 285 hectares and an estimated population of 35,000. This made it the second-largest in Italy (after Tarentum) and about half the size of contemporary Athens (585 hectares, inc. Piraeus).[3] Also, few scholars today dispute that Rome was ruled by kings in its archaic period, although whether any of the 7 names of kings preserved by tradition are historical remains uncertain (Romulus himself is generally regarded as mythical). It is also likely that there were several more kings than those preserved by tradition, given the long duration of the regal era (even if it did start in 625 rather than 753 BC).[4]
The Roman monarchy, although an autocracy, did not resemble a medieval monarchy. It was not hereditary and based on "divine right", but elective and subject to the ultimate sovereignty of the people. The king was elected for life by the people's assembly, although there is strong evidence that the process was in practice controlled by the patricians, a hereditary aristocratic caste. Most kings were non-Romans brought in from abroad, doubtless as a neutral figure who could be seen as above patrician factions. Although blood relations could succeed, they were still required to submit to election.[5] The position and powers of a Roman king were thus similar to those of Julius Caesar when he was appointed dictator-for-life in 44 BC and indeed of the Roman emperors.
In addition, it seems certain that the kings were overthrown in ca. 500 BC, probably as a result of a much more complex and bloody revolution than the simple drama of the rape of Lucretia related by Livy, and that they were replaced by some form of collegiate rule.[6] It is likely that the revolution that overthrew the Roman monarchy was engineered by the patrician caste and that its aim was not, as rationalised later by ancient authors, the achievement of "liberty", but of a patrician-dominated oligarchy. The proverbial "arrogance" and "tyranny" of the Tarquins, epitomised by the Lucretia incident, is probably a reflection of the patricians' fear of the Tarquins' growing power and their erosion of patrician privilege, most likely by drawing support from the plebeians (commoners). To ensure patrician supremacy, the autocratic power of the kings had to be fragmented and permanently curtailed. Thus the replacement of a single ruler by a collegiate administration, which soon evolved into two Praetors (later called Consuls), with equal powers and very limited terms of office. Patrician supremacy was assured by limiting eligibility to hold the republican offices to patricians only.
The establishment of a hereditary oligarchy obviously excluded wealthy non-patricians from political power and it is this class that led plebeian opposition to the early Republican settlement. The early Republic (510-338 BC) saw a long and often bitter struggle for political equality, known as the Conflict of the Orders, against the patrician monopoly of power. The plebeian leadership had the advantage that they represented the vast majority of the population and of their own growing wealth. Their ultimate success did not, however, result a more egalitarian form of government. The wealthy plebeians who had led the "plebeian revolution" had no more intention of sharing real power with their poorer and far more numerous fellow-plebeians than did the patricians. It was probably at this time (around 300 BC) that the population was divided, for the purposes of taxation and military service, into 7 classes based on an assessment of their property. The two top classes, numerically the smallest, accorded themselves an absolute majority of the votes in the main electoral and legislative assembly. Oligarchy based on birth had been replaced by oligarchy based on wealth.
Infantry
According to Livy, Romulus raised 1,000 infantry from each of the 3 original tribes of Rome (Ramnes, Tities and Luceres).[7] P. Fraccaro's interpretation of the so-called Servian reforms to the army suggests that the hoplite (armoured) infantry was doubled in size to a single legion of 6,000, which, together with 2,400 velites (unarmoured infantry) and 600 cavalry adds up to a total regal levy of 9,000 iuniores (men of military age: aged 16 to 45).[8] Until recently, Fraccaro's thesis was not widely accepted because of Alfoldi's theory that "insignificant" early Rome could not have supported such a powerful army (or cavalry) in the regal era.[9] But with an estimated 35,000 inhabitants, a military levy of 9,000 is plausible.[10] According to the Fraccaro interpretation, when the Roman monarchy was replaced by two praetores, the royal army was divided equally among them for campaigning purposes, each legion numbering 3,000 hoplites, 1,200 velites and 300 cavalry, for a total of 4,500 men.[11]
Cavalry
Romulus supposedly established a cavalry regiment of 300 men called the Celeres ("the Swift") to act as his personal escort, with each of the three tribes supplying a centuria (century; company of 100 men), This cavalry regiment was supposedly doubled in size to 600 men by King Tarquinius Priscus (conventional dates 616-578 BC).[12] According to Livy, Servius Tullius also established a further 12 centuriae of cavalry.[13] But this is unlikely, as it would have increased the cavalry to 1,800 horse, implausibly large compared to 8,400 infantry (in peninsular Italy, cavalry typically constituted about 8% of a field army).[14]. This is confirmed by the fact that in the early Republic the cavalry fielded remained 600-strong (2 legions with 300 horse each).[15]
An important question is whether the royal cavalry was drawn exclusively from the ranks of the Patricians (patricii), the aristocracy of early Rome, which was purely hereditary.[16] This is certainly the mainstream view among historians, starting with Mommsen. However, Cornell considers the supporting evidence tenuous).[17] Since the cavalry was probably a patrician preserve, it follows that it probably played a critical part in the coup against the monarchy. Indeed, Alfoldi suggests that the coup was carried out by the Celeres themselves.[18]
According to the ancient Greek historian Polybius, whose Histories (written ca. 140s BC) are the earliest substantial extant account of the Republic, Roman cavalry was originally unarmoured, wearing only a tunic and armed with a light spear and ox-hide shield which were of low quality and quickly deteriorated in action.[19]
Roman Polybian army (300 - 88 BC)
Roman imperial army (88 BC - AD 284)
Late Roman army/East Roman army (284 - 641)
Byzantine army (641 - 1071)
Komnenian Byzantine army (1071 - 1453)
Citations
- ^ Livy VI.1
- ^ Cornell (1995) 180-1
- ^ Cornell (1995) 96, 103, 203-9
- ^ Cornell (1995) 119-21
- ^ Cornell (1995) 141–42
- ^ Cornell (1995) 226-9
- ^ Livy I.15, 36
- ^ Cornell (1995) 181-2
- ^ Cornell (1995) 209
- ^ Cornell (1995) 204-7
- ^ Cornell (1995) 182
- ^ Livy I.36
- ^ Livy I.43
- ^ Based on figures in Polybius II.24
- ^ Cornell (1995) 193
- ^ Cornell (1995) 245
- ^ Cornell (1995) 250
- ^ Cornell (1995) 238, 446 note 32
- ^ Polybius I.
See also
- List of Roman legions
- List of Roman auxiliary regiments
- Roman auxiliaries
- Roman legion
- Late Roman army
- Byzantine army
- East Roman army
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
