We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
There is surely no one any more who requires convincing that the basis of the Augustan principate was the control of the legions. Augustus may have paraded his tribunician power and played down his potestas as a magistrate, but the Res Gestae is above all else the record of the generalissimo in control of the entire military resources of the empire. That control remained almost unchallenged for forty-four years.
William Harris brilliantly demonstrated that under the Republic military glory was the preeminent virtue of Roman politicians. The state was now in the control of one man, but nothing had changed, except that the stakes were higher. Edward Gibbon, of course, detected the truth. He had, after all, both political and military experience – however inglorious.
1 The phrase in the title is Syme's, R., in The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939), 476.Google Scholar Suffice to quote Mommsen, Theodor: ‘The Roman monarch was essentially a general, a fact on which the greater part of his power rested’ (History of Rome under the Emperors [London 1996] 104)Google Scholar; von Premerstein, Anton: ‘Der Prinzipat ist von Aufbeginn an eine Militärmonarchie’ (Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats [Munich 1937] 99)Google Scholar; and Campbell, Brian: ‘The military usurper ruled the Roman empire backed by the personal loyalty of his mercenary army’ (The Emperor and the Roman Army [Oxford 1984] 33)Google Scholar. On this aspect of the Res Gestae, see my Emperor's Retrospect (Leuven 2003) 90f.Google Scholar
2 Harris, William, War and Imperialism in Mid-Republican Rome (Oxford 1979)Google Scholar.
3 Gibbon, Edward, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Bury, J.B., 1 (London 1895) 72.Google Scholar Brian Campbell (n. 1) 6 expressed similar judgement: ‘military disaster could lead to instability and lack of confidence in the emperor's capacity to rule, and loss of support among the rank and file of soldiers.’
4 Marsh, F.B., The Founding of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1927) 233.Google Scholar
5 Gruen, Erich, ‘Imperial Roman policy’, in Between Republic and Principate, ed. Raaflaub, K. (Berkeley 1990) 411.Google Scholar
6 Purcell, Nicholas, CAH 10 2.795.Google Scholar
7 Gardthausen, Viktor, Augustus und seine Zeit, 1 (Leipzig 1891) 640Google Scholar; Meyer, Eduard, ‘Augustus’, HZ 91 (1903) 404 = KS 1 (Halle 1924) 444Google Scholar; Grant, Michael, The Army of the Caesars (London 1975) 79.Google Scholar
8 Pelling, Christopher, CAH 10 2.8.Google Scholar
9 Syme(n. 1)231.
10 Gruen, , CAH 10 2.173.Google Scholar
11 Syme (n. 1) 297; Grant (n. 7) 38. One of the most interesting categories of evidence for Octavian's early military reputation comes from the Perusine War, the much-studied glandes, the sling-shots, with inscriptions attacking him as a homosexual (cf. Suet, . Aug. 68Google Scholar, Dio 48.3.1): Hallett, Judith, ‘Perusinae glandes’, AJAH 2 (1977) 151–171.Google Scholar
12 Zanker, Paul, The Power of Images (Ann Arbor 1988)Google Scholar, may serve as an attempt to counter Syme's view of Augustan propaganda. The contradictions become instantly obvious. Augustus did not employ any such ‘subtle [sic] programme’ but rather ‘an interplay of the images that the emperor himself projected [!] and the honors bestowed on him more or less spontaneously’[!] (3).
13 Campbell (n. 1) 420. Kurt Raaflaub saw some of the problems: he stated that the loyalty of the troops to Augustus was ‘carefully built on successful leadership and generous patronage’ but he illustrates only the second point. Or again, allegiance was based on ‘personal contact, leadership and success’ but after Actium what personal contact did Augustus have, what successes did he achieve? All major actions, Raaflaub states, had to be led by the Princeps himself or at least by his close relatives. This was, however, simply not possible, and a little later it is admitted that reliance had to be placed on leading senatorial families. ‘The political significance of Augustus’ military reforms', in Roman Frontier Studies (Oxford 1979) 1005–1025.Google Scholar
14 Stevenson, G., CAH 10.221.Google Scholar
15 Rostovtzeff, Michael, Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1926) 39.Google Scholar
16 Syme (n. 1) 353; Crook, John, CAH 102.114Google Scholar; Keppie, Lawrence, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47-14 BC (Rome 1983) 132Google Scholar: ‘Augustus took the army out of politics.’
17 We should not have to wait until 15 BC for the whole army to have been recruited by Augustus, contra Donald Earl, The Age of Augustus (London 1968) 164.Google Scholar
18 Keppie, Lawrence, The Making of the Roman Army (London 1985) 149.Google Scholar
19 Campbell (n. 1)159.
20 Von Premerstein (n. 1) 100, followed by Syme (n. 1) 352,376,404.
21 Rostovtzeff (n. 15)41.
22 Galinsky, Karl, Augustan Culture (Princeton 1996) 84Google Scholar; Keppie (n. 18) 154; Grant (n. 7) 40. An amusing example of an attempt to claim that Augustus adopted a defensive policy is Leon Homo, Auguste (Paris 1935) 137f.Google Scholar, who then admits that his reign was marked by endless wars, all successful – even Arabia. With this lack of reality one begins to understand what happened to France just five years later. Another example is Beranger, Jean, Recherches sur l'aspect idéologique du Principat (Basle 1953) 49Google Scholar: the Augustan peace relegated military virtues to the background [!], Augustus’ prototype Aeneas was distinguished for his pietas (what would Turnus have thought?) and Ovid praises the ‘dux pacificus’ – which is an amazing misunderstanding of the meaning of that label. Von Premerstein (n. 1) 101, offers basic insights as always: the mass of the population was rarely conscripted, their otium was not disturbed, and the taxes for the army were kept at the lowest possible levels.
23 Gardthausen (n. 7) 630.
24 Campbell (n. 1) 283.
25 Brunt, Peter, ‘Pay and superannuation in the Roman army’, PBSR 18 (1950) 50–71.Google Scholar
26 Speidel, Michael, ‘The pay of the auxilia’, JRS 63 (1973) 141-7Google Scholar; Alston, Richard, ‘Roman military pay from Caesar to Diocletian’, JRS 84 (1994) 113–123.Google Scholar
27 Campbell (n. 1) 166; von Premerstein (n. 1) 101, could find only one donative (Dio 55.6.4).
28 Duncan-Jones, Richard, The Economy of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1974) 11f.Google Scholar
29 Campbell (n. 1) 179; cf. 172.
30 Rostovtzeff (n. 15) 41; Jones, A.H.M., Augustus (London 1970) 116Google Scholar; Raaflaub (n. 13) 1013; the same in Campbell (n. 1) 417; Mann, John, Legionary Recruitment and Military Settlement during the Principate (London 1983) 49Google Scholar; Bleicken, Jochen, Augustus (Berlin 1998) 554, agreed.Google Scholar
31 Jones (n. 30) 116; Campbell (n. 1) 179; Brunt (n. 25) 60; Alston (n. 26) 122.
32 Campbell (n. 1) 161; Bleicken (n. 30) 548.
33 Raaflaub(n. 13)1012.
34 Dobson, Brian, ‘The significance of the centurion and primipilarius’, ANRW 2.1 (Berlin 1974) 392–434.Google Scholar
35 Gardthausen (n. 7) 643.
36 Mann (n. 30) 7. For lists of the colonies, ibid. 8f.
37 Keppie (n. 16) 106.
38 Von Premerstein (n. 1) 104.
39 Keppie (n. 16)128.
40 Frank, Tenney, ESAR 5 (Baltimore 1940) 170.Google Scholar
41 Brunt (n. 25) 61; Campbell (n. I) 417, agreed; Raaflaub (n. 13) 1013; Mann (n. 30) 49; also Bleicken (n. 30) 554.
42 Sirago, Vito, Il phncipato di Augusto (Bari 1978) 77Google Scholar; Campbell (n. 1) 158, for the unpopularity; Grant (n. 7) 83, on Augustus' contribution.
43 Webster, Graham, The Roman Soldier (London 1969) 147Google Scholar, The Roman Imperial Army (London 1985) 44.Google Scholar
44 Von Premerstein (n. 1) 108f.
45 Campbell (n. 1)231, 235.
46 Ibid. 228, 301.
47 On all this see von Premerstein (n. 1) 73f.
48 Campbell (n. 1)23f.
49 Von Premerstein (n. 1) 106f; so Bleicken (n. 30) 558.
50 Charlesworth, Martin, ‘Pietas and victoria’, JRS 33 (1943) 1–10 at 3fGoogle Scholar. It is fascinating that Charlesworth sees Hadrian as the man with the problem: having abandoned provinces, he went so far as to stress hunting prowess as compensation! Campbell (n. 1) 151.
51 Schmitthenner, Walter, ‘Octavians militärische Untemehmungen in den Jahren 35-33 v. Chr.’, Historia 7 (1958) 189–236.Google Scholar
52 Campbell (n. 1).
53 Meyer (n. 7) 404 = 444.
54 Crook, , CAH 10 2.117, 121.Google Scholar
55 Buchan, John, Augustus (London 1937) 337.Google Scholar
56 Gagé, Jean, ‘Victoire d'Auguste’, MEFR 49 (1932) 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57 Weinstock, Stefan, ‘Victor and Invictus’, HTR 50 (1957) 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58 Kuttner, Ann, Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus (Berkeley 1995) 15, 25f.Google Scholar
59 Fears, R. Rufus, ‘The theology of victory at Rome’, ANRW 2.17 (1981) 736ff. at 812.Google Scholar
60 Syme, , ‘Imperator Caesar, a study in nomenclature’, Historia 7 (1958) 172-88 = Roma Papers 1 (Oxford 1979) 361f.Google Scholar
61 Combes, Robert, Imperator (Paris 1966) 133f.Google Scholar
62 Campbell (n. 1)94.
63 On the many magical overtones of the 'vir felix‘ and his triumph, see Hendrik Versnel, Triumphus (Leiden 1970).Google Scholar
64 Lacey, A.K. Patrick, Augustus and the Phncipate (Leeds 1996) 43, 139.Google Scholar
65 Campbell (n.l) 138-9.
66 Crook, , CAH 10 2.91.Google Scholar
67 Hickson, Frances, ‘Augustus triumphator’, Latomus 50 (1991) 124–138.Google Scholar
68 Lacey (n. 64) 72f.
69 Gurval, Robert, Actium and Augustus (Ann Arbor 1996) 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70 Ibid. 246: Gurval sees Vergil as creating or defining the battle in Augustan public culture as a ‘mighty clash of cultures’ and the ‘embarkation of a new age’. He also introduced for the first time Apollo Actius (Aen. 8.704Google Scholar).
71 Earlier, Gurval argues, in Propertius 2.1 Actium comes at the end of a disquieting list of Octavian's victories: Mutina, Philippi, Sicily, Perusia. And in 2.15 he implies that Actium, with its Roman dead, offended the gods. Regarding 4.6 it must be admitted that there is a fierce modern battle over whether Propertius is offering a sincere eulogy or indulging in parody and political recusatio. The subject is Palatine Apollo, and the outcome of the battle – which is not described – will be determined by the gods. Both Italy and Octavian are afraid, but Cleopatra did not justify a triumph.
72 Murray, W. and Petsas, P., Octavian's Campsite Memorial (Philadelphia 1989).Google Scholar
73 The arch: Nedergaard, in LTUR 1 (Rome 1993) 80-1Google Scholar; the rostra: Zanker (n. 12) 379, nothing in Verduchi, , LTUR 4 (1999) 214-7Google Scholar; the porticus Octaviae: Zanker, fig. 100, Fittschen, Klaus, ‘Zur Panzerstatue in Cherchel’, JDAI 91 (1976) 175–210Google Scholar, fig. 13; the temple of Apollo, Gurval, chap. 2, with Pelling's review, JRS 87 (1997) 289f.Google Scholar
74 Antioch: Fittschen (n. 73) fig. 14; Petra: ibid. fig. 15.
75 Gurval (n. 69) 289.
76 Holscher, T., ‘Actium und Salamis’, JDAI 99 (1984) 187–214.Google Scholar
77 Syme, , ‘The conquest of NW Spain’, in Legio VII Gemina (Leon 1970) 83–107 at 85Google Scholar; Schmitthenner, W., ‘Augustus spanischer Feldzug und der Kampf urn den Prinzipat’, Historia 11 (1962) 29–85.Google Scholar
78 Bivar, Adrian D., in Cambridge History of Iran, 3.1 (1991) 66.Google Scholar
79 Sherwin-White, Adrian, Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 BC-AD 1 (London 1984) 324.Google Scholar
80 Bivar (n. 78) 66.
81 Ridley (n. l)218f.
82 Sherwin-White (n. 79) 339f.
83 A policy of universal conquest, with ‘no reason to suppose’ that Augustus intended the Elbe to be the frontier (Wells, Colin, The German Policy of Augustus [Oxford 1970] 249)Google Scholar; ‘His plans envisaged the conquest of the Germanic peoples well beyond the Elbe’ (Sherwin-White [n. 79] 329); Augustus nurtured ‘an aggressive dream of world wide empire’ (King, Anthony, Roman Gaul and Germany [Berkeley 1990] 58).Google Scholar
84 Ridley (n. 1), 196f.
85 Barnes, Timothy, ‘The victories of Augustus’, JRS 64 (1974) 21–26.Google Scholar
86 Merivale, Charles, History of the Romans under the Empire, 3 (London 1896) 433Google Scholar; Siber, Heinrich, Das Führeramt des Augustus (Leipzig 1940) 103Google Scholar; Campbell (n. 1), 124.
87 Campbell (n. 1), 127-8. The latter comments are made in relation to Claudius and the Flavians but apply with remarkable appropriateness also to Augustus.
88 Von Premerstein (n. 1), 106; on the corona civica see Maxfield, Valerie, Military Decorations of the Roman Army (London 1981) 70f.Google Scholar
89 Maxfield (n. 88) 67f.
90 Weinstock, Stefan, Divus Julius (Oxford 1971) chap. 11.Google Scholar
91 Campbell (n. 1), 202f.
92 On the ornamenta, Maxfield (n. 88) 105f; for a list of recipients, Gordon, Arthur, Q. Veranius, cos. AD 49 (Berkeley 1952) 305f.Google Scholar
93 Mommsen, , SR 1 (Berlin 1871) 466Google Scholar; Boyle, Aline, ‘The origin of the ornamenta triumphalia’, CP 37 (1942) 130–141; Maxfield (n. 88), 105f.Google Scholar
94 Galinsky (n. 22) 385; Boyle (n. 93) 141.
95 Crook, , CAH 10 2.114fGoogle Scholar; Campbell (n. 1) 319; Gardthausen (n. 7) 627; also Buchan (n. 55) 223.
96 Sirago (n. 42) 77: imperial family; Syme (n. 1) 327; Grant (n. 7) 42; Campbell (n. 1) 328, in agreement; Raaflaub (n. 13) 1016f; Marsh (n. 4) 236, saw more reliance on the old nobility after 16.
97 I have followed Syme's judgement on who was a nobilis and who was a novus homo: Lollius (399), Sentius (330), Sulpicius (399), Vinicius (401).
98 Rich, John, ‘Augustus and the spolia opima’, Chiron 26 (1996) 85–127.Google Scholar
99 Degrassi, Attilio, Inscriptiones Italiae 13.3 (Rome 1937) 1–36.Google Scholar
100 Campbell (n. 1) 113f.
101 Seeck, Otto, Augustus (Bielefeld 1902) 107.Google Scholar
102 Syme (n. 1) 388; Galinsky (n. 22) 368; Mommsen (n. 1) 104.
103 Halfmann, Helmut, Itinera Principum (Stuttgart 1986) 15–29.Google Scholar There is interestingly no note on these passages in John Rich's edition of Dio 53-5 (Warminster 1990), or the editions of Suetonius' Augustus, by Adams, K. (London 1939), M. Levi (Florence 1951), or J. Carter (Bristol 1982).Google Scholar
104 See especially Lacey (n. 64) chap. 1: ‘Coming home’.
105 Versnel (n. 63) 387f.: ‘the triumph is essentially an entrance ceremony’.
106 Campbell (n. 1)87.
107 Richard, Jean-Claude, ‘Les aspects militaires des funerailles impériales’, MEFR 78 (1966) 313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is strange that he does not see the real significance of the men's casting of their decorations on the pyre: they were returning them to their source which was now no more.
108 For a basic discussion see Campbell (n. 1) 32f, who strangely sees this as part of the Augustan facade rather than a very conscious policy. The term commilitones was perhaps reintroduced by Gaius and was normal by 68 (Tac, . Hist. 1.35Google Scholar), abandoned by the Flavians, and reintroduced by Trajan (Dig. 29.1.1Google Scholar, Pliny, Pan. 19.3Google Scholar).
109 Syme(n. 1)457 alludes to some of this.
110 Syme, So, JRS 23 (1933) 15.Google Scholar
111 Sirago (n. 42) 73f.
112 Wiedemann, Thomas, CAH 10 2.207Google Scholar; ‘discontent under such circumstances was inevitable’ (Marsh, , The Reign of Tiberius [Oxford 1930] 52)Google Scholar; ‘the grievances … were real’ (Seager, Robin, Tiberius [London 1972] 58)Google Scholar; the problems of settlement were not solved by the aerarium militare (Garzetti, Albino, From Tiberius to the Antonines [London 1974] 20)Google Scholar. It was, in fact, Webster (The Roman Imperial Army, 44) who divined an amazing truth: ‘It is doubtful if any of the Julio-Claudian emperors ever understood the problem of the rankers except perhaps Tiberius, but he showed no serious concern.’
113 Gardthausen (n. 7), 637; Syme, , CAH 10 352Google Scholar; Earl (n. 17), 164; Raaflaub (n. 13) 10.
114 Ridley (n. 1)192.
