Mutiny In The Ranks

[caldrail]

For many people, the Roman legions remain the quintessential army. Well organised, disciplined, capable, and utterly remorseless. Whilst the legions did display these qualities from time to time, they were more often less than this popular image. Much can be said about the faults of their military regime. The corruption, brutality, larceny, indolence, and rebelliousness should always be born in mind when considering the performance of these men. To see the Roman legions in the same light as a modern western army is something of a misconception, and we should be wary of judging the Romans by our own standards.

 

In particular it has been suggested that examining the rebelliousness of legions might prove an interesting article. At first glance it seems odd that a legion would rebel. They represented a strong society. As soldiers, they were given a relatively secure if risky career for regular pay, combined with better medical care for the common man than most civilians could expect. They might receive bonuses or gratuities, a plot of land on retirement, and they even contributed to a lump-sum pension scheme. The legion was a fraternity, a brotherhood in which the men would be made to feel part of, and to reinforce the bonds of loyalty soldiers were grouped into conterbernii (close friends), squads of eight men who lived, paraded, marched, camped, and fought together.

 

Nonetheless, whilst all this was true, legions did mutiny. In most cases a rebellion is mentioned in passing by our sources. Time and again the Roman writers gloss over the causes of rebellion as if it were no suprise that these things were going on. Unlike today, where any deficiency in the circumstance and behaviour of an army unit is a front-page scandal, in Roman times it was front page news that the threat of civil disorder had been dealt with. Roman legions were not well behaved to begin with. That was the price the Romans paid for an army toughened and willing to fight on their behalf.

 

There is however one legion mutiny that has been discussed in depth by our Roman sources. We begin our investigation at a summer camp commanded by Junius Blaesus in the province of Pannonia following the news that Augustus had died. So his troops could mourn their beloved emperor, Blaesus ordered that all duties were set aside.

 

This was when insubordination and altercation began. Before long, easy living and idleness were all the troops wanted; The idea of work and discipline became distasteful.

Annals (Tacitus)

 

The speed with which discipline broke down is astonishing, but also very revealing of the legionaries character. These were men kept in place by brutality. For all their supposed professionalism, the reality was that it never matched what we expect of our modern soldiers. If the control was relaxed for a moment, the Roman soldiers invariably exploited it to a greater or lesser degree.

 

For the troops in Pannonia had mutinied as soon as they learned of the death of Augustus, and coming together into one camp and strengthening it, they committed many rebellious acts. Among other things they attempted to kill their commander, Junius Blaesus, and arrested and tortured his slaves. Their demands were, in brief, that their term of service should be limited to sixteen years, that they should be paid a denarius per day, and that they should receive their prizes then and there in the camp; and they threatened, in case they did not obtain these demands, to cause the province to revolt and then to march upon Rome.

Book 57, History of Rome (Cassius Dio)

 

Dio gives us a typical description of such a rebellion. There's precious little detail or indeed any sympathy for the mutineers, and although we can read and understand what the rebellion is about, we don't know if the grievances were real or opportunistic. We don't know how the soldiers reall felt, what their real motivations were, or waht was actually happening to set them on this course. Tacitus on the other hand has no illusions as to the nature of a mutiny in the ranks.

 

...mutiny broke out in the regular army in Pannonia. There were no fresh motives for this, except that the change of emperors offered hopes of rioting with impunity and collecting the profits afforded by civil war...

Annals - Tacitus

 

As I searched through the Roman sources for mentions of mutinies, what comes across is the element of profit. Soldiers felt aggrieved because they were not receiving enough pay, booty, or reward for their service, which must be said was no small commitment. There is an unwritten agreement amongst soldiers that they're in it for the money. Even in republican times, when the soldiers swore allegiance to the senate and the people of Rome, their personal profit came before any feelings of patriotism.

 

In fact, in a culture that was ruthlessly commercial and where status was based on wealth, our modern concept of patriotism is something of an anachronism. National loyalties exist but remain unimportant. What matters more is personal loyalty - to your friends, your commander, and your general. It should come as no suprise that a successful general in Roman times was one who ensured his troops were well rewarded for their efforts.

 

To underline that, notice what happens in the siege of Jerusalem in AD 72. Once the troops finally break into the city, Titus allows his men to loot and pillage freely. Valuables are stolen by rampaging legionaries, and such was their spending spree afterward that the value of gold in Syria plummets. For all the supposed benefits of legionary life, the soldiers took every opportunity to enjoy themselves away from the camp. We may well assume from this that day to day life was not an overly interesting and rewarding experience.

 

In most cases, the voices of the soldiers are silent in the Roman sources. We read from the perspective of learned men, often those of higher station or of relatively safe position. There is however a fascinating exception provided by Tacitus, who records what was apparently said by men involved in the Pannonian revolt.

 

"Old men, mutilated by wounds, are serving their thirtieth or fortieth year. And even after your official discharge your service is not finished, for you stay on with the colours as a reserve, still under canvas - the same drudgery under another name! And if you manage to survive all these hazards, even then you are dragged off to a remote country and 'settled' in some waterlogged swamp or untilled mountainside. Truly the army is a harsh and unrewarding profession! Body and soul are reckoned at two and a half sesterces a day - and with this you have to find clothes, weapons, tents, and bribes for brutal company commanders if you want to avoid chores. Heaven knows, lashes and wounds are always with us!"

From the speech of Percennius

Annals (Tacitus)

 

Tacitus describes Percennius as a former cheer-leader in a theatre. To us that may seem no more than a brief outline of a man with some experience of playing to the crowd. But actors were infama in Roman society, infamous, below the horizon socially. In this dry but barbed summary, he is dismissing Percennius as a man of low station and integrity. A worthless troublemaker.

 

In fairness, Tacitus doesn't entirely place the blame with him. There was something more scandalous going on, and he records another speech made by a soldier in Pannonia which is a chilling insight as what was actually happening.

 

But you can't give my brother back to me, or me to him! The army in Germany sent him to talk to you about our common interests, and the general had him murdered last night by the gladiators he keeps armed to butcher us soldiers. Answer, Blaesus - Where have you put his corpse? Even enemies don't refuse a grave. Later, when I have embraced his corpse and mourned my fill, you can tell them to murder me as well. But they musn't grudge us a burial. We are not dying because of any crime. We are dying because we worked for the armies good!"

From the speech of Vibulenus

Annals (Tacitus)

 

Vibulenus is at first spared the quiet dismissal and seems to be a man with genuine grievance. Later, we read that it turns out the slaves of Junius Blaesus, questioned under torture as required for legal niceties in the Roman world, denied that a man had been murdered. Further, we learn that Vibulenus had no brother. Without independent verification it's impossible to determine whether Vibulenus was a liar or Tacitus was depicting the rebellion as an act of lawlessness alone. Clearly the plight of the average legionary was not an important consideration.

 

In many cases of mutiny the first thing done was to send an officer to mediate and persuade the men to go back to work. Retribution against the troublemakers could wait. It was more important that the threat of civil war was averted. Such a task must have required courage to confront men who had already slain their commanders.

 

"Why have you come, if you are not going to raise salaries, improve terms of service, or help us at all? Anyone, on the other hand, is allowed to murder and flog!"

Anonymous dissent

Annals (Tacitus)

 

One slain centurion is mentioned by name. Lucilius, whose nickname was 'Give Me Another' after his habit of breaking vine staffs used to chastise his men. There can be no doubt that some soldiers took advantage of the breakdown in discipline to revenge their personal grievances against him.

 

Although the centurionate was a class of career junior officers, responsible more than any other factor for the maintenance of order and standards within the legion, these were hard men, the dominant warriors of a pack, who dealt out swift punishment for infractions. Many were also corrupt, taking bribes from their men to avoid onerous duties. It might be construed that there was little sense of 'fairness' about legionary life. Rather it was simply who could grab whatever perks they could, a state affairs consistent with Roman society and yet curiously in opposition to the 'brotherhood' regime offically sanctioned in the military.

 

The soldiers sense of justice wasn't always lethal. One senior military official, Aufidienus Rufus, was dragged from his carriage and made to walk ahead of a column with baggage piled on his back, repeatedly taunted and mocked about whether he liked the hard labour of a common soldier.

 

On the other hand, mutineers require allies to survive. They had sent messengers to legions in Germany seeking to enlarge the rebellion, broken deserters and condemned murderers out of their cells, and even kept one officer from harm to act as a spokesman for their cause. Further, they require funds and supplies to ensure they remain fed. Local villages had already been looted by soldiers who were effectively out of control.

 

In considering the account made by Tacitus we're left with something of a problem. It was always common practice for Roman writers to relate speeches in this way, and Dio especially is fond of recording such orations, yet it's a bit hard to understand how an address given in distant places, perhaps made before living memory, without offical record, could be accurately described at all. We are then left with a strong possibility that this is done for dramatic purpose. That doesn't mean the sentiments expressed are wrong, merely that the words are not those used by the men involved.

 

The Mutiny In Easy Steps

Listed below are the events of this rebellion in as close a chronological order as possible.

 

1 - News of Augustus's death and the accession of Tiberius reaches the summer camp of the legion of Quintus Junius Blaesus stationed in Pannonia.

2 - Junius Blaesus orders all normal duties suspended to allow his men to mourn or rejoice.

3 - Instances of insolence and insubordination begin

4 - Percennius recruits a cadre of rebels in secret

5 - Decision is made to merge units into one, but jealousy causes acrimony amongst conspirators.

6 - All military standards are placed together on a conspicuous turf mound, a symbol of rebellious unity.

7 - Blaesus discovers what is going on and demands his troops remain loyal to Rome, even if they wish to kill him. His persistence pays off and work on the platform ceases.

8 - Mutineers demand that Blaesus's own son, a senior officer in the legion, goes to Rome as a delegate to place their demands before the Emperor. Bad behaviour eases.

9 - Detachments away from camp for building bridges and roads hear of the mutiny and loot surrounding villages. Officers attempting to restrain them are jeered and beaten.

10 - Aufidienus Rufus, a senior officer who believed in strict old fashioned military values, is made to walk ahead of a column bearing excessive baggage.

11 - Arrival of the detachments back at camp. Bad behaviour resumes. Troops begin wider ranged looting and pillaging.

12 - Blaesus uses loyal soldiers to arrest the worst offenders to be flogged and confined as examples. Mutineers break open the cells and free them.

13 - Mutiny gains momentum. Vibulenus makes his speech. Gladiators and household slaves of Blaesus are taken captive by the mutiny.

14 - Many senior officers flee and their belongings looted. Centurion Lucilius 'Give Me Another' is murdered.

15 - Centurion Julius Clemens is kept from harm provided he speaks for the mutiny. There is some acrimony over this move.

16 - Tiberius hears the news of the mutiny and sends Drusus to deal with the situation as he sees fit.

17 - Drusus arrives at the camp to a turbulent reception and eventually manages to read out a letter from Tiberius, who gives consent for whatever demands are immediately possible. The mutiny is told all others must await the deliberation of the Senate.

18 - Clemens voices the demands. Drusus declares the Emperor and the Senate must have their say. Drusus withdraws with one of the legions officers, Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus, who is stoned by the angered men until Drusus's main force arrives to prevent further disorder.

19 - The moon is observed to decline in a clear night sky. A bad omen and the mutineers morale suffers.

20 - Julius Clemens is co-opted by Drusus to persuade the mutiny to give up. Standards are returned to their normal place and 'a sense of obedience' returns.

21 The son of Blaesus is again sent to Rome. Drusus calls for an end to the mutiny.

22 - Percennius and Vibulenus are arrested and executed.

23 - Other ringleaders are gathered by former mutineers and turned over to prove their loyalty.

24 - Drusus returns to Rome satisfied the mutiny has ended.

 

How typical was the mutiny in Pannonia? That's difficult to tell. Another rebellion in Germany of a larger scale and threat clearly had the intention of persuading Germanicus to become emperor.

 

But then Germanicus passed on to the mutiny. What on earth had happened, he asked, to their famous traditional military discipline, and where had they driven their tribunes and centurions?

Annals (Tacitus

 

As with the other mutiny, the immediate concern of the Empire was to restore order, and certain demands were met straightaway. One aspect of this remains interesting. Officers were asked to present themselves for appraisal and if found 'grasping and brutal' they were summarily dismissed. This was offset by the actions of Caecina, commander of another legion involved in the mutiny sixty miles away, who was told by letter that Germanicus would arrive shortly and was to ensure that action had been taken beforehand. He did so by arranging for a mass slaughter of mutineers by loyal troops.

 

We run into the same problem that the sources rarely give much away. That said, we could summarise the various motives found in Roman mutinies.

 

Liberty

There comes a point where individuals cannot tolerate their current situation any more. In normal circumstances this results in desertion from the legion, but not everyone would consider that course as viable. There is, after all, safety in numbers, and instead of deserting alone and vulnerable, why not do so en masse? That of course requires co-operation from other members of the legion, and so this is characterised by a period of persuasion and debate. Roman troops do appear to be easily led, and none too bright.

 

Purpose

A primary cause of problems with soldiers is inactivity. The Romans knew this. Men were co-opted onto civil engineering projects for just this reason, to keep them busy and thus out of mischief. Without good order the legions may well disintergrate into armed bands as the more vocal personalities begin to dominate. Should any of these individuals have more ambition, then it's likely they will quickly recruit followers to their cause and thus give them purpose.

 

Loyalty

Time and again a legions sided with ambitious generals and threatened Rome. It's sometimes hard to tell whether the general was persuaded by his men to mount a coup or the general took advantage of his mens loyalty to him. There were also occaisions, such as the civil war between Caesar and Antony, where troops changed loyalties from side to the other where they felt they would benefit.

 

Greed

By far and away the most common motive for mutiny is the question of personal reward. The majority of soldiers signed up to earn a living, with the possibility of getting windfalls from victories or other means, and bear in mind their daily life is often boring, harsh, and tiring.. Prolongued periods of low pay, or indeed a failure to receive any expected gratuities, will quickly anger Roman troops. It must also be said that promises of gratuities may well persuade a mutiny to begin.

 

Final Question

Thus a certain rudeness, derived from the shepherds, their ancestors, which still remained in them, betrayed something of an untamed spirit. Hence it happened that the army, having mutinied in the camp, stoned their general, Posthumius, for withholding the spoil which he had promised them; that under Appius Claudius they refused to conquer the enemy when they had the power; that on occasion of the soldiers, with Volero at their head, declining to serve, the fasces of the consul were broken; and that the people punished their most eminent leaders with exile, when they opposed their will:

Epitome of Roman History, Book One (Florus)

 

Were rebellions not so much a matter of circumstance, but of the character of the Roman people, or perhaps even a reflection of human nature generally?

Edited May 26, 2010 by caldrail

[Centurion-Macro]

Firstly, this is a brilliant article. I have not read something like that on an internet forum for a long time.

 

I can fully believe all this in the Roman legions. Those that entered were brutal men, and they were not the warriors of other cultures, for example, the Greeks. These were poor men, commonly from the dregs of society, looking for adventure and promise of land if they survived the 25 years. They did not fight for honor, and they did not fight for Rome. Most soldiers had never seen Rome, and most never did. They were ordered by the rich folk, and in turn, these orders were passed through the alpha males, or the centurions. They did keep order by brutality, as we see with punishments such as Decimation, which was an extremely harsh punishment, not designed to inspire loyalty, but to inspire fear.

 

The legions did have a brotherhood, but the legions also had everything commonly found in a prison. Many of the men were like convicts in the fact they were brutal, they were all powerful men, and they were dangerous. They were indeed given slack pay, bad hours and a tiring career, and at the end the 'land' they received was commonly in a outlying province, such as Britain. It is understandable that they felt resentment, and it only takes one to set off that spark of resentment. Sure, the officers could usually keep order, but in a legion of 5,000 men, all alpha males, it is only natural that order will fail at some point. Rome channeled these men, and concentrated them into a fighting machine, but even a fighting machine like a legion can not be kept in line for ever like that.

 

For example, the mutiny before the invasion of Britain was one of fear. The legions heard such incredible rumors that Britain held, such as monsters and beasts, and they decided not to go. This group decided that their pay and what Rome was currently offering them was not enough to invade over the sea. They did not want to die so that Claudius could cement his position in Rome, a city they had never laid eyes on. And they did not want to follow their officers from Rome, who did not care about the men at all, and only wanted to advance their own careers. And eventually what had to happen was that the alpha males who implemented this mutiny were killed. Order was restored, by brutality. The legions then captured Britain.

 

This system did work, as we can see from the magnitude of the Roman civilization. But it would always spark these outbursts, and these outbursts had to be put down or the system would fail. You must remember that Rome was ruled by a few rich officials, and they commanded through the use of force. And therefore the legions were a mirror of that. The commander and tribunes were the elite, and they used the centurions, men who they could count on to keep the other men in line through their fearsome personalities. And in turn, the men followed this system. But as you state, there is only so much a man can take before he reaches a breaking point. And that is what happens in a legion mutiny.

 

So in answer to your question, I believe it was the Roman society. Ruled by a small elite, they could not keep the masses in line by themselves. The legions were meant to protect the elites through conquest and policing duties. They were governed by the same system, and so mutinies happened, much like food riot might happen in Rome. They are completely similar in the fact that Roman society worked through controlling the masses, and to do that force was needed. Sure, they could count on respect or loyalty to keep order, but when times get bad, how can you inspire loyalty? Therefore fear was used in Roman society, as it was universal and could be counted on. So the Roman legions followed that system as well.

[Maty]

Impressive material. Apart from applause, all I can add is that it may be worth adding that one of the most famous mutinies in Roman history/legend is when the centurion Verginius killed his daughter Verginia to stop her falling into the clutches of the despotic Appius Claudius, and fled to the army for protection. The men not only refused to give him up, they mutinied and brought down the oppressive Decemvirate and restored democracy.

 

Even if this legend from the early Republic is untrue, it will have established in the army mentality that it is right to oppose unjust rule.

[caldrail]

By coincidence I stumbled across something yesterday. Plutarch tells in his Life of Marius that Roman soldiers loved nothing more than a leader who eats the same food and shares in their labour. It's a very telling statement. Even in Roman times, when society was strictly layered with sometimes harsh punishments for those who transgress the rules of privilege, there is a sense of inequality in the lower classes.

 

You might argue there was bound to be. The lower classes were rubbing shoulders with people considerably wealthier than they were. Despite the overall acceptance of the status quo, some may have looked enviously at the rich and asked themselves why it was they were denied such comforts. In our case study above, Blaesus is mentioned as having household slaves and even gladiators as personal guards. Rufus is described as using a carriage for mobility.

 

So we could in fact add another motive... Envy.

[Centurion-Macro]

Envy? I agree with that. I mean, just look at Caesar. The Plebs loved him. Why? Because he was generous. He gave to the people, and he gave to his army. He lived with his soldiers, and he fought with his soldiers. Therefore they with him, against the Republic they pledged their oath to. It is like Vespasian, who was known for being well liked in his ranks because he did not act all posh and rich. He just got the job done and took care of his men, and they loved him for that - which is how he started the Flavian dynasty.

[Late Emperor]

A very interesting thread caldrail.

 

I've some questions regarding the issue if these rebellion against army officers and commanders were as frequent in the late empire as in the previous centuries (of course I know that legionaries still followed their want-to-be-emperor general against "Rome").

 

1) AFAIK since the Aurealianus' reform, the Roman Army became more democratic allowing the low rank soldiers to climb ALL the military hierarchy to the top office of general and from general even to emperor (the best example is Diocletianus, son of poor illirian peasants): I guess that this reform could have made the soldiers more loyal to the army which offered the possibility of great social climbing and especially loyal to their officers, commanders and even generals who were "like them", as opposite to the first/second centuries legions in which the common soldier could hope at best to become only a centurion and officers/commanders/generals were only recruited from the aristocracy. Is my assumption correct?

 

2)Were the huge self-sufficient legions abandoned for smaller mobile "regiments" of comitatenses and fixed limitanei units of farmer-soldiers by Diocletianus/Costantine, also in order to make rebellions more easily suppressible and in the case of limitanei to give the soldiers a personal reason to defend the border (their own land)?

 

3)Could it be speculated that Diocletianus turned the office of Emperor in a sacred, divine oriental style leadership also in order to raise troop loyalty and decrease the rate of rebellions?

 

4)How christianity, a monotheistic religion similar to an ideology, affected the loyalty of the troops since Theodosius the Great turned it in a state religion? Were they brainwashed into fight to defend the Faith against the pagan barbarians and parthians (despite many soldiers being christianized germanics themselves) and at the same time convinced that rebellion against he Imperial Army was a rebellion against God himself, incarnated by the Empire?

 

5)Regarding questions 3 and 4, were rebellions a frequent event also among the regular troops (not the mercenaries) of the very christian eastern roman/byzantine empire, during its long post-western roman history?

Edited November 7, 2010 by Late Emperor

[caldrail]

1) AFAIK since the Aurealianus' reform, the Roman Army became more democratic allowing the low rank soldiers to climb ALL the military hierarchy to the top office of general and from general even to emperor (the best example is Diocletianus, son of poor illirian peasants): I guess that this reform could have made the soldiers more loyal to the army which offered the possibility of great social climbing and especially loyal to their officers, commanders and even generals who were "like them", as opposite to the first/second centuries legions in which the common soldier could hope at best to become only a centurion and officers/commanders/generals were only recruited from the aristocracy. Is my assumption correct?

hard to say. There is something in the human psyche that responds to a strict definition of status, on the basis that everyone knows their place, and to allow the promotion of poorer classes does erode that. In fact, it does illustrate a certain erosion of Roman culture altogether, since the promotion of a lowly individual would mean they would ascend to a higher status on retirement. Earned by their military career, one would assume, but all the same an increasingly egalitarian Rome must have 'softened' as part of the societal balance.

 

As for the concept that officers promoted through the ranks would have been preferable, that's impossible to say. It actually depends more on the qualities on the individual concerned. An officer from a low birth may have been hated or respected - both are equally possible.

 

As for the idea that a soldier could be 'only a centurion', bear in mind how influential centurions were. They were a class of junior officer who were responsible for leadership, discipline, and taking the fight to the enemy. If you look closely at the development of the legion, the centurionate takes on another aspect. These men were also acting as a sort of 'tribal chief', each with a retinue of soldiers under their sway, and we know that Roman soldiers were sometimes unwilling to accept orders from centurions other than their own. Also, becoming a centurion opened up doors in later life, and notice also how centurions were sometimes given territorial responsibilities in garrison duty, acting as Roman officials.

 

2)Were the huge self-sufficient legions abandoned for smaller mobile "regiments" of comitatenses and fixed limitanei units of farmer-soldiers by Diocletianus/Costantine, also in order to make rebellions more easily suppressible and in the case of limitanei to give the soldiers a personal reason to defend the border (their own land)?

As far as I know, the change in unit organisation was to meet the changing tactical requirements of security in the empire. The need for large heavyweight armies had gone, largely because the Romans weren't fighting large battles much any more, and also because raiding tactics employed by hostiles on the borders mitigated against unwieldy formations.

 

In fact, the dispersion of forces around provincial areas led to a great deal of annoyance to local populations, who often became respsonible for billeting these men and suffered their bad behaviour. If anything, it encouraged a rebellious attitude and I do note that toward the end communities were seeking every opportunity to opt out of the tax system, partly because the costs of supporting a large defensive military were proving too much, but also because communities were questioning what they got for their money.

 

3)Could it be speculated that Diocletianus turned the office of Emperor in a sacred, divine oriental style leadership also in order to raise troop loyalty and decrease the rate of rebellions?

It had more to do with ensuring political security and devolving Roman government into the tetarchy in an attempt to increase efficient rule. It's interesting that you suggest this, but I don't have any specific reason to believe you're right.

 

4)How christianity, a monotheistic religion similar to an ideology, affected the loyalty of the troops since Theodosius the Great turned it in a state religion? Were they brainwashed into fight to defend the Faith against the pagan barbarians and parthians (despite many soldiers being christianized germanics themselves) and at the same time convinced that rebellion against he Imperial Army was a rebellion against God himself, incarnated by the Empire?

Soldiers are as likely to be manipulated as anyone else. If an influential individual claims that rebelling is necessary, and worse still, claims divine right in doing so, any assumption of divinity in the established government is soon forgotten. After all, legions had always been ostensibly loyal to the emperor since the time of Augustus, but the loyalty of the men was always going to be more focused on their leaders who provided for their welfare in many ways far more than some distant emperor.

 

The only real change in Roman behaviour regarding the military and christian belief that I'm aware of was a growing reluctance for men to serve, based on religious objection, and if anything, the minor upsurge in executions of refuseniks was not likely to inspire christian soldiers to loyalty toward those who punished their beliefs.

 

5)Regarding questions 3 and 4, were rebellions a frequent event also among the regular troops (not the mercenaries) of the very christian eastern roman/byzantine empire, during its long post-western roman history?

Good question. I'm not sure, as it happens, because that's not an era I know much about. I get the impression rebellions were much rarer in byzantine times. Might be worth reading up on it. I do note a stronger loyalty to the emperor in byzantine times. Even the suggestion that a man was acting against the throne resulted in one guy receiving one of the most cruel and theatrical executions I've read about.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

I don't know how I'd missed this article when first published, "bravo" as we say in french.

You've looked into details into this rebellion from the early empire, but seem to extend it at least to the rest of the imperial period. But are they not other factors ? I seem to remember cases when the suggested cause for rebellion was the fact that the soldiers did not want to leave their "quasi-wifes", wives in all but truth, and their children who lived around the permanent bases. If I remember well it is one of the official causes of the gallic soldiers rebellion against Constantine II and their elevation of Julian II to the purple (even if they did finally go to the east). A cause that, if indeed exact, could be put in parrallel with the troubles the romans had to guarrison Spain in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, with soldiers not wanting to go there because they would be too long far from home.

It would also be interesting to study in as much depth as is possible the difference between republican and imperial mutinies, to see if the factors between the two are much different. Also, but this is truly adding a new scope to your study, it could be interesting to see the kind of responses the autorities have in the different cases, to see if they answered differently to different types of mutinies.

[Late Emperor]

@caldrail, thanks for the answers: do you know if the navy fleets frequently mutinied too?

[Artimi]

I found this thread very enligthening. This is why I stay here.

 

Centurion-Marco's comment:

They are completely similar in the fact that Roman society worked through controlling the masses, and to do that force was needed. Sure, they could count on respect or loyalty to keep order, but when times get bad, how can you inspire loyalty? Therefore fear was used in Roman society, as it was universal and could be counted on.

 

I have been reading John Twelve Hawks series of books about the 'Vast Machine'. This sounds so much like his idea of our history and modern times. What has changed? The techonology used to control society? (rampant paranoia on my part???)

Edited November 7, 2010 by Artimi

[caldrail]

@caldrail, thanks for the answers: do you know if the navy fleets frequently mutinied too?

That's a darn good question. I'm not aware of any significant mutiny in the Roman navy, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Virgil61]

It's a fascinating subject. I don't agree that we can't compare the Roman army to later armies, in fact through experience and my own knowledge of military history the Roman experience in mutiny, discipline, etc., is often comparable to other armies (Army of Flanders, French Army in 1917, etc.).

 

As a side note, in terms of discipline (not mutiny) the absolute worst tend to be the elites; paratroopers and Marines. The home of the 82nd Airborne Division, Fayetteville North Carolina, has been famous for full jail cells of paratroopers on Friday and Saturday nights. The British Royal Marines I saw (and partied with) in Injurlick Turkey were among the rowdiest people I've ever seen. Of course Roman methods were more brutal [as were many things in those times].

 

Again, the irony is that the most disciplined troops are often the worst in terms of behavior. One can speculate on the reasons and where they are similar or dissimilar to each other and the Roman experience.

 

I partially agree that we can't take everything about the Romans too far in comparing military experiences but I believe the Roman military experience can a teach some basics rules of leadership to a perceptive military reader and the issue of mutinies does a fine job of highlighting it [issues of pay, excessive discipline, continued enforced enlistment, keep troops busy, etc.]

 

In 1920 Wm Messer wrote an article in Classical Philology (Mutiny in the Roman Army. The Republic; William Stuart Messer; Classical Philology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Apr., 1920), pp. 158-175) that covers similar ground on the issue of mutiny in the Roman army. He essentially accuses Polybius of being the first to exaggerate the Roman military.

 

JSTOR charges $19 for it but Google Books has it for free:

 

http://tinyurl.com/2wm9odf.

 

[see the download button on the upper right.]

 

Worth a read.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Virgil61

[Virgil61]

Speaking of discipline I have a copy of "Roman Military Service; Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate". LINK

 

Interesting Bry Mawr Classical Review excerpt:

 

 

S. E. Phang's Roman Military Service is a wide-ranging look at military discipline and a host of related issues from the point of view of social and cultural history. As Phang usefully points out in her introductory chapter, there are commonly held views of the Roman army that exaggerate certain aspects of discipline--decimation and the view of Roman soldiers as tactical automatons are among the apt examples--and thus severely distort a more complex reality. Rather than mere repression or organization in service of a tactical goal, Phang argues, "discipline" embraces a wide array of cultural practices that inculcated obedience, enabled the social control of the army by the elites who commanded it, and were shaped by a complex of ideologies. There is a wealth of useful information in this book, and it provides several new ways of looking at important aspects of the social and cultural history of the Roman army.

[GhostOfClayton]

Darn good article, Caldrail.

 

I've been eschewing reading it until I had the time. Glad I didn't leave it too long. It has given me (and I'm sure the other readers) a much greaater understanding of the mindset of the Roman military man.

 

Thanks for your hard work and research.

Edited November 10, 2010 by GhostOfClayton

[Lanista]

Now that's a candidate for thread of the year right there. Excellent idea, love it, great work and great comebacks on the topic too.