The Augustan Reforms

[caldrail]

With the beginning of the Principate, Augustus had inherited sixty legions, many of whom were veterans of the civil wars. Clearly this was a vast and expensive army for a state now offically at peace and he reduced the number to twenty eight. The roman army would remain more or less at around thirty legions for a long time to come.

 

During the civil wars, the major players had understandably gathered cohorts of bodyguards to protect themselves against enemy action, or even treachery by their own troops. It wasn't lost on Octavian that Antony had gained so large an army because legions had changed sides when it suited them. These units of bodyguards were known as Praetorian Cohorts. Augustus amalgamated these cohorts as part of his military amnesty to form the Praetorian Guard which nonetheless remained a dilemma for him, because their loyalty as a whole could not be guaranteed. For that reason Augustus stationed only three cohorts within the city of Rome, preferring to billet the remainder in the surrounding country. Not until Aelius Sejanus became Praetorian Prefect during the reign of Tiberius would the Praetorians be brought entirely within the boundaries of the capital city.

 

There seems to be an interesting change in Augustus's attitude toward the legions. According to Suetonius, he no longer called them Comrades. The old view of the legions as a citizens army was finally being swept away and from that point forward, Augustus always referred to them as Soldiers.

 

This status was further reinforced by changes in reward for military conduct. Army generals were given triumphs to recognise their talent without hesitation. Thirty of them received full triumphs and a larger number lesser recognition. Clearly Augustus was mindful of maintaining army loyalty by keeping their commander sweet. For the ordinary soldiers however the awards for valour were now likely to be a valuable but inferior silver plaque or collar rather than the older respected Corona.

 

The command structure of the legions was fixed by Augustus and each had a permanent genral, or Legate, of senatorial rank. His number two, the Tribunis Laticlavius, might be expected to be a military novice serving an apprenticeship in command. The third in seniority, Prefectus Castrorum, was intended to be an experienced career soldier in charge of the camp. Interestingly the command structure included five equestrian officers, the Tribunis Augusticlavi, who were allocated responsibilities as required. This innovation provided new roles for the equestrian order that previously hadn't existed.

 

Regarding the auxillaries, Augustus organised them as seperate cohorts rather than legion sized units. On the one hand it made for a flexible support structure (the entire purpose of auxillaries in the first place), but also to ensure that any rebellious foreigners would be outnumbered by their legionary opponents.

 

Augustus also brought back the cavalry contigent of the legion, one hundred and twenty strong, although the auxillary cavalry were better equipped. Perhaps ten perecent of men under arms during the augustan period were cavalry, who were going to become more important on the battlefield from this time.

 

On two occaisions the class structure of roman culture was set aside in order to provide enough troops. The first was to protect the veteran colonies in Illyricum, the second to defend the Rhine against the germanic tribes. By roman law slaves were not permitted to serve in the legions but in each case household slaves were recruited and made freedmen in segregated units. They were not allowed weapons of standard pattern either.

 

Augustus was very keen to prevent tainting roman institutions with slaves. However the use of freed slaves wasn't new to Augustus. In his eight year Sicilian campaign we see him needing to replace fleets of warships lost in storms. The new vessels were manned by twenty thousand slaves given freedman status, who exercised throughout one winter to help bring victory against the ships of Pompey. After Augustus mass recruitment of slaves was discontinued.

 

Whilst Marius had not set limits to the number of years a soldier should serve, tradition dictated that sixteen years or campaigns were enough. Augustus made the sixteen year rule permanent, with veterans serving a further four years as immunes. The crises of manpower during his reign resulted in a full twenty year service that remained in place throughout the Principate.

 

The length of service introduced was resented by the soldiers and it comes as no suprise that Augustus attempted to forestall mutinies by establishing standard pay and perks. An army treasury supported by taxation was introduced and fixed bounties according to rank were paid to men on completion of their service instead of the more contentious land-grants.

 

Its noticeable that under Augustus some legions achieved a certain individuality and reputation. He did nothing to discourage this. Possibly he felt this was a positive move toward esprit-de-corps, and from this point a legion could title itself appropriately to commemorate victories. Soldiers were now taught individual legion traditions which made them proud of their unit. In fact, its possible that some legions refused to surrender their titles to reorganisation which is why the numbering sequence was so haphazard in later years.

 

Contrary to popular belief the Lorica Segmentata, the 'banded armour' so typical of hollywood depictions, was a later development that first saw use from the reign of Claudius onward. The soldiers continued using the heavy mail shirt from the republican days. Helmets were on the cusp of change from the older flatter bowl to a more rounded shape.

 

In the augustan age, gladiatorial combat (Munera) was increasingly popular alongside the affluence of roman society and some elements of their protection appears to have influenced the legions own. Helmets had larger neck guards and Murmillo shields were already curved and rectangular. It's also true that new tactical innovations like the Testudo (Tortoise formation ) were encouraging the use of newer curved rectangular shields. Although the legions attempted to standardise on this new design, many oval or truncated oval shields from the republican days persisted, and oval or hexagonal shield designs were still used by the auxillaries.

 

As in the days of Caesar, legions carried only one pilum into battle instead of two as normally depicted. The gladius was in a period of transition too, from the graceful republican 'spanish' sword to the simpler 'pompeii' type that would emerge from Claudius onward, another sign of increasing standardisation during the augustan period.

 

Unlike his mentor Julius Caesar, Augustus was a 'safe' commander who avoided rash decisions. Not all of them were so wise however. He had appointed Publius Quinctilius Varus as commander in the german colonies. Varus has been described as 'A judge, but not a judge of men'. Fooled by the german Arminius his command was led into an ambush in the Teutoberg Forest in AD9. The XVII, XVIII, and XIX legions were slaughtered and never reformed. From this disaster the roman policy of entrenchment began.

 

Although Marius had set the foundations of the professional army, it was Augustus who gave them professional status. Yet despite the changes he made Augustus was unable to prevent the old problems of disloyalty and corruption. The roman legions would remain a turbulent force both in war and politics thereafter.

[The Augusta]

This status was further reinforced by changes in reward for military conduct. Army generals were given triumphs to recognise their talent without hesitation. Thirty of them received full triumphs and a larger number lesser recognition. Clearly Augustus was mindful of maintaining army loyalty by keeping their commander sweet. For the ordinary soldiers however the awards for valour were now likely to be a valuable but inferior silver plaque or collar rather than the older respected Corona.

 

Great article, Caldrail - but I am a bit confused about the above passage. I had always understood that full Triumphs under Augustus were only reserved for members of the Imperial family. Other generals were given the lesser Ovation or Triumphal ornaments. Have you found new evidence to the contrary?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

In the augustan age, gladiatorial combat (Munera) was increasingly popular alongside the affluence of roman society and some elements of their protection appears to have influenced the legions own. Helmets had larger neck guards and Murmillo shields were already curved and rectangular. It's also true that new tactical innovations like the Testudo (Tortoise formation ) were encouraging the use of newer curved rectangular shields. Although the legions attempted to standardise on this new design, many oval or truncated oval shields from the republican days persisted, and oval or hexagonal shield designs were still used by the auxillaries.

 

Excellent article Caldrail.

 

Do we actually know who we can attribute the Testudo to, Who invented/designed the tortoise shell formation?

[caldrail]

Great article, Caldrail - but I am a bit confused about the above passage. I had always understood that full Triumphs under Augustus were only reserved for members of the Imperial family. Other generals were given the lesser Ovation or Triumphal ornaments. Have you found new evidence to the contrary?

Seutonius records that thirty generals were given full triumphs, and many more were awarded privileges associated with them. If those thrity were part of the royal family all well and good, but it doesn't seem likely does it? The trouble is Augustus was very keen on rebuilding the class system in roman society which is probably why you read that he he reserved things for his family. I actually think he was more wary than that. To have done so was risking a rebellion by commanders who couldn't achieve high honours.

 

Do we actually know who we can attribute the Testudo to, Who invented/designed the tortoise shell formation?

I've never come across any record of the inventor. We'll probably never know.

[Primus Pilus]

Great article, Caldrail - but I am a bit confused about the above passage. I had always understood that full Triumphs under Augustus were only reserved for members of the Imperial family. Other generals were given the lesser Ovation or Triumphal ornaments. Have you found new evidence to the contrary?

Seutonius records that thirty generals were given full triumphs, and many more were awarded privileges associated with them. If those thrity were part of the royal family all well and good, but it doesn't seem likely does it? The trouble is Augustus was very keen on rebuilding the class system in roman society which is probably why you read that he he reserved things for his family. I actually think he was more wary than that. To have done so was risking a rebellion by commanders who couldn't achieve high honours.

 

Triumphal restriction seems to have been a slow development, much like the Augustan consolidation of power. The farther into the principate we are, the less likely a non family member was to celebrate a triumph. For instance, Aelius Plautius (Claudius' conqueror of Britain) received an ovation and Agricola received triumphal decoration despite the strained relationship with Domitian, but it was not an actual triumph of course.

 

In any case Suetonius doesn't report when these 30 triumphs occurred but the implication is throughout Augustus' entire reign. However, Suetonius' account is laced with short references to people who had held triumphs. It would seem that the restriction did not quite begin until after the transition to Tiberius. Or perhaps the Teutoburg disaster not only affected imperial policy but perhaps had a significant impact on how Augustus chose to reward his unrelated generals?

[Primus Pilus]

Just doing a bit more reading...

 

In Life of Tiberius, Suetonius says...

After two years he returned to the city from Germany and celebrated the triumph which he had postponed, accompanied also by his generals, for whom he had obtained the triumphal regalia

 

Perhaps when Suetonius suggests that Augustus gave triumphs to 30 generals, perhaps he simply means the regalia and decoration, but not the full triumph?

[The Augusta]

Just doing a bit more reading...

 

In Life of Tiberius, Suetonius says...

After two years he returned to the city from Germany and celebrated the triumph which he had postponed, accompanied also by his generals, for whom he had obtained the triumphal regalia

 

Perhaps when Suetonius suggests that Augustus gave triumphs to 30 generals, perhaps he simply means the regalia and decoration, but not the full triumph?

 

PP, this has always been my understanding. Or, as I commented before, the lesser 'ovatio' that came to replace the old Republican full 'triumph'. I'll do a bit of digging myself and see what I can come up with.

[Primus Pilus]

PP, this has always been my understanding. Or, as I commented before, the lesser 'ovatio' that came to replace the old Republican full 'triumph'. I'll do a bit of digging myself and see what I can come up with.

 

As Caldrail suggests though, In "Life of Augustus" Suetonius is quite clear with the description.

He was not less generous in honouring martial prowess, for he had regular triumphs voted to above thirty generals, and the triumphal regalia to somewhat more than that number.

 

It's clear that he makes the distinction and there seems to be no translation issue. In the original Latin Suetonius says iustos triumphos which can be translated as "just, justified, lawful, regular, etc."

 

Nec parcior in bellica virtute honoranda, super triginta ducibus iustos triumphos et aliquanto pluribus triumphalia ornamenta decernenda curavit

[The Augusta]

PP, this has always been my understanding. Or, as I commented before, the lesser 'ovatio' that came to replace the old Republican full 'triumph'. I'll do a bit of digging myself and see what I can come up with.

 

As Caldrail suggests though, In "Life of Augustus" Suetonius is quite clear with the description.

He was not less generous in honouring martial prowess, for he had regular triumphs voted to above thirty generals, and the triumphal regalia to somewhat more than that number.

 

Ah - now here we have it! He had the triumphs 'voted' to them. That does not mean they celebrated them. Hadn't Agrippa set the precedent that it was customary to refuse? Cf. Graves' translation: 'Augustus showed equal generosity in recognising military talent, by letting full triumphs be voted to more than thirty of his generals, and triumphal regalia to an even larger number.' It is an interesting point that Caldrail raises, however, for modern historians seem to be unanimous in stating that no Triumphs were celebrated during his reign apart from those by members of his family. Have the moderns misinterpreted Suetonius? Did the generals celebrate Triumphs after all?

 

This has got me wondering now.... Well spotted, Caldrail!

 

ETA: Our own UNRV article HERE seems to take this idea for granted too. Have we all been labouring under a misapprehension? Now I want to find out exactly where in our primary sources it says that he would not allow triumphs to be celebrated by non-related men. This is turning out to be quite a fascination for me.

Edited April 27, 2007 by The Augusta

[Primus Pilus]

Ah - now here we have it! He had the triumphs 'voted' to them. That does not mean they celebrated them. Hadn't Agrippa set the precedent that it was customary to refuse? Cf. Graves' translation: 'Augustus showed equal generosity in recognising military talent, by letting full triumphs be voted to more than thirty of his generals, and triumphal regalia to an even larger number.' It is an interesting point that Caldrail raises, however, for modern historians seem to be unanimous in stating that no Triumphs were celebrated during his reign apart from those by members of his family. Have the moderns misinterpreted Suetonius? Did the generals celebrate Triumphs after all?

 

Excellent observation. Obviously the question here is then one of interpretation. However, the words decernenda curavit are fairly clear and aren't really that open to different interpretations. The notion that these honors were provided without the actual celebration makes perfect sense since none of the usual suspect writers mention a single one of these numerous parades in the historical record. Admittedly, such things would probably not merit extensive reporting, but one would think that there might be some mention. If anyone would, it likely would've been Livy, but unfortunately we are only left with the Periochae.

 

I admit to a weakness regarding "the arts". Does Ovid or Virgil mention anything of this nature.

[Primus Pilus]

ETA: Our own UNRV article HERE seems to take this idea for granted too. Have we all been labouring under a misapprehension? Now I want to find out exactly where in our primary sources it says that he would not allow triumphs to be celebrated by non-related men. This is turning out to be quite a fascination for me.

 

Keep in mind that the events related to Crassus Dives here are about 30, 31 BC when a portion of the Republican facade still existed.

 

Edit: It was during Octavian's fourth consulship so it was more likely 30 or 29 rather than 31 or 30 BC. Seems minor, but there was a fairly significant event that occurred in 31 My source material by the way is Dio book 51, beginning with ch. 23 and a limited confirmation in Livy's Periochae. Presumably Dio was using Livy as a source.

 

Additionally, to my knowledge, no primary source says that a triumph couldn't be awarded to a non imperial family member. The statement is purely my own conjecture based upon the lacking evidence to the contrary.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Found this on roman-emperors.org, it states that M Licinius Crassus celebrated a triumph in 27 BC.

 

The importance to Augustus, as well as to the state, of his monopolization of army loyalties is revealed in two suggestive incidents in 27 BC, when the Augustan order was still in its infancy. At this delicate time, M. Licinius Crassus, grandson of the great Late Republican magnate, raised a serious problem for Augustus. As governor of Macedonia he had undertaken successful campaigns south of the Danube in 29-28 BC and had personally killed the enemy leader in battle. In 27 BC, then, he was awarded a triumph but he went further: he claimed the ancient honor of spolia opima ("the most honorable spoils"), awarded to a Roman commander who had slain his counterpart with his own hand. These honors, involving the dedication of the enemy commander's captured panoply to Jupiter Feretrius, had only been earned on three prior occasions in all of Roman history. Since Crassus's claim to the spolia opima would have raised Crassus into the uppermost echelons of military glory, it had the potential to confuse the soldiers' loyalty toward Augustus. So Augustus blocked the claim on a technicality. Crassus held his triumph and promptly disappears from our records. (It is unlikely that he was killed but, rather, that his public profile died a death in the face of Augustus's displeasure, a good example, if true, of the workings of auctoritas.) Not long afterward, another governor proved problematic. C. Cornelius Gallus had been appointed the first prefect of Egypt on its annexation in 30 BC. Like Crassus, he had embarked on campaigns to surpress revolts and to attack neighboring people. He then celebrated his successes with statues of himself and bragging inscriptions, one of which has survived. Enraged, Augustus let it be known that he no longer considered Gallus his friend. Charges were immediately brought and proposals laid that Gallus be convicted in absentia, exiled, and his property given to Augustus. His social status and political career in ruins, his very life perhaps in danger, Gallus committed suicide (possibly in 26 BC). Both of these men had behaved fully within the boundaries of republican precedent but had failed utterly to appreciate a fundamental rule of the new order: there was to be no military glory but Augustus's. In contrast, Agrippa, for so long Augustus's right-hand man, repeatedly refused honors and triumphs granted to him; all his victories were celebrated by Augustus.

[caldrail]

I think we need to understand why triumphs were awarded to generals in the first place. Agricola has been mentioned as an example of one triumph awarded but never celebrated. When you look closer, Emperor Domitian did not like Agricolas success. If this general finally conquered Britain, he would return with legions behind him as a glorius conquerer. So Domitian ordered him home before the campaign was complete. The triumph would have been used as an excuse to ruin Agricola's possible attempt on political power. He realised this, and refused to accept the honours claiming he was only doing his duty. Truth is, he was only saving his neck.

 

Popularity is a two edged coin in roman times. Without it, you cannot safely run for office or even potentially rise to the top slot. With popularity comes envy and emnity. Many of these generals knew this and were unwilling to risk exposing themselves to these dictators. This is reinforced by the knowledge that so many roman generals were cautious characters. The romans preferred such men to lead their armies rather than the charismatic, reckless, adventurer types like Julius Caesar who lets face it set something of a precedent by accepting honours as a way securing power.

Edited April 28, 2007 by caldrail

[WotWotius]

This status was further reinforced by changes in reward for military conduct. Army generals were given triumphs to recognise their talent without hesitation. Thirty of them received full triumphs and a larger number lesser recognition. Clearly Augustus was mindful of maintaining army loyalty by keeping their commander sweet. For the ordinary soldiers however the awards for valour were now likely to be a valuable but inferior silver plaque or collar rather than the older respected Corona.

 

Great article, Caldrail - but I am a bit confused about the above passage. I had always understood that full Triumphs under Augustus were only reserved for members of the Imperial family. Other generals were given the lesser Ovation or Triumphal ornaments. Have you found new evidence to the contrary?

 

According to Favro, generals that were not from Augustus' immediate family were awarded triumph after 19 BC. Even before then, however, most of the triumphant generals during the time of Augustus were related to the princeps by marriage alliances; although triumphal processions of less significant individuals were often diminished

[Nephele]

Great article, Caldrail! While admittedly I'm not often drawn to articles on the Roman military, I found this quite to my liking, applying to our Principate focus group as it does and showing how the Roman way of doing things was gradually changing.

 

There was a point you brought up that I found particularly interesting:

 

There seems to be an interesting change in Augustus's attitude toward the legions. According to Suetonius, he no longer called them Comrades. The old view of the legions as a citizens army was finally being swept away and from that point forward, Augustus always referred to them as Soldiers.

 

If I might be forgiven some wild speculation in my ignorance of military history (and I'm hoping that you or others might further enlighten, unless Suetonius makes it clearer and I've simply missed this)... Augustus often seemed content to allow Agrippa to do much of the actual fighting for him. So could one reason why Augustus was no longer (what seems to me) warmly calling his legionaries Comrades and had instead begun to refer to them by the (what seems to me) somewhat more distant term of Soldiers, be because Augustus, himself, wasn't much of a partnering "comrade" to them on the actual battlefield?

 

-- Nephele