Legionary Literacy

[caldrail]

Ok, you spotted the deliberate mistake!

[Kosmo]

The higher authorities were interested in some record keeping at legion level because they provided the pay and the supplies. I'm sure that they did not want to pay more.

[Formosus Viriustus]

Salvete Omnes,

 

If it hasn't been mentioned yet earlier, could I draw attention to Tacitus, Annals II, 18, 2 and II, 19, 1 about the battle of Idistaviso during Germanicus' campaign in Germania. That seems to indicate to me that not only the legionaries could read, but the Germans as well. Why else would they consider boards put up after the battle with inscriptions to commemorate it so offensive ?

You could argue that if only a few of them could read, they could tell the others. Still.

 

Formosus

[sylla]

...Tacitus, Annals II, 18, 2 and II, 19, 1 about the battle of Idistaviso during Germanicus' campaign in Germania. That seems to indicate to me that not only the legionaries could read, but the Germans as well. Why else would they consider boards put up after the battle with inscriptions to commemorate it so offensive ?

From the Loeb translation (Bill Thayer's site)

"It was a brilliant, and to us not a bloody, victory. The enemy were slaughtered from the fifth hour of daylight to nightfall, and for ten miles the ground was littered with corpses and weapons. Among the spoils were found the chains which, without a doubt of the result, they had brought in readiness for the Romans.

After proclaiming Tiberius Imperator on the field of battle, the troops raised a mound, and decked it with arms in the fashion of a trophy, inscribing at the foot the names of the defeated clans.

The sight affected the Germans with an anguish and a fury which wounds, distress, and ruin had been powerless to evoke. Men, who a moment ago had been preparing to leave their homesteads and migrate across the Elbe, were now eager for battle and flew to arms. Commons and nobles, youth and age, suddenly assailed the Roman line of march and threw it into disorder. "

The Germans' frustration and rage after such a sight was understandable, but such rage certainly didn't imply that any German was actually able to read.

 

What Tacitus undisputedly implied here is that at least some Roman soldiers were able to write.

Edited May 15, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

...Tacitus, Annals II, 18, 2 and II, 19, 1 about the battle of Idistaviso during Germanicus' campaign in Germania. That seems to indicate to me that not only the legionaries could read, but the Germans as well. Why else would they consider boards put up after the battle with inscriptions to commemorate it so offensive ?

From the Loeb translation (Bill Thayer's site)

"It was a brilliant, and to us not a bloody, victory. The enemy were slaughtered from the fifth hour of daylight to nightfall, and for ten miles the ground was littered with corpses and weapons. Among the spoils were found the chains which, without a doubt of the result, they had brought in readiness for the Romans.

After proclaiming Tiberius Imperator on the field of battle, the troops raised a mound, and decked it with arms in the fashion of a trophy, inscribing at the foot the names of the defeated clans.

The sight affected the Germans with an anguish and a fury which wounds, distress, and ruin had been powerless to evoke. Men, who a moment ago had been preparing to leave their homesteads and migrate across the Elbe, were now eager for battle and flew to arms. Commons and nobles, youth and age, suddenly assailed the Roman line of march and threw it into disorder. "

The Germans' frustration and rage after such a sight was understandable, but such rage certainly didn't imply that any German was actually able to read.

 

What Tacitus undisputedly implied here is that at least some Roman soldiers were able to write.

 

 

Thanks for the text, sylla. I am reading it in a Dutch translation. That one slighty more stresses that the boards with the inscriptions caused the Germans more bitterness and rage than the loss of that many people.

From Dutch to English I would translate it as : ' The sight thereof [the boards] filled the Germans with more bitterness and rage than the dead and wounded they had to mourn.'

That is a strong statement I think if the boards were only ment for the Roman legionaries, which I also dare to doubt. Remember also that the Germans were led by Arminius - to all intents and purposes a Roman. In my opinion Germanicus had those boards put up with the intent that it would cause the effect that it seems to have had : away to further humiliate the beaten Germans. It wouldn't have been very effective if none of them could read.

 

Formosus

[Edit] I am also a bit confused by that mention of Tiberius all of a sudden. We are talking about Germanicus, I think ?

Edited May 15, 2009 by Formosus Viriustus

[sylla]

Thanks for the text, sylla. I am reading it in a Dutch translation. That one slighty more stresses that the boards with the inscriptions caused the Germans more bitterness and rage than the loss of that many people.

From Dutch to English I would translate it as : ' The sight thereof [the boards] filled the Germans with more bitterness and rage than the dead and wounded they had to mourn.'

That is a strong statement I think if the boards were only ment for the Roman legionaries, which I also dare to doubt. Remember also that the Germans were led by Arminius - to all intents and purposes a Roman. In my opinion Germanicus had those boards put up with the intent that it would cause the effect that it seems to have had : away to further humiliate the beaten Germans. It wouldn't have been very effective if none of them could read.[Edit] I am also a bit confused by that mention of Tiberius all of a sudden. We are talking about Germanicus, I think ?

Tacitus presented this maneuver as a wise strategy from Germanicus and his legate Tubero (ibid 20) for deliberately provoking the Cherusci. I would think the trophy mound as a whole (and not just the boards), including the spoils of their fallen comrades, was the intended raging sight for all the Germans (and not just for the clans inscribed in the boards). Even if some former auxiliaries and other Cheruscans were able to read Latin, I doubt many of them would have been close enough to read the inscriptions. In any case, the whole picture must have been rather eloquent for even the less literate men.

 

The inscriptions were undoubtedly done for the Roman posterity; after the subsequent second victory, Germanicus "raised a pile of weapons, with a legend boasting that "the army of Tiberius Caesar, after subduing the nations between the Rhine and the Elbe, had consecrated that memorial to Mars, to Jupiter, and to Augustus"." (Ibid 22)

 

From the very beginning, all victories of the Imperial Army were systematically considered as the acting Emperor's triumphs; occasionally, some other member of the Imperial dynasty (like Germanicus) may share some of the glory. As usual, Tacitus tries to abuse Tiberius via Germanicus; however, this was the standard practice, and the unilateral claim of a personal triumph from any commander would have carried the obvious risk of being considered a sign of rebellion.

Edited May 15, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

Salve sylla,

 

Yes seems fair enough. I was probably reading (!) too much into that passage. It just drew my attention because we had been discussing the subject lately. Otherwise I would probably not even have noticed it. Taking that statement literally is a bit absurd. Boards or no boards, reasonably speaking that couldn't have made any difference to the Germans. But then that is what Tacitus says. That is always a danger, I think, reading most ancient historians. That Tacitus could give a good description of that battle seems reasonable to me. But he also describes to the minutest details several minor and insignificant incidents that happened at the time. My reaction then is : how can he possibly know that, given the distance in time and space ? That is were I think fiction and history intertwine.

Thucydides is one of the few ancient writers who seldom if ever does that. Although he wrote about events that happened during his lifetime and in which he himself was involved, he seldom if ever goes into such detailed descriptions of rather minor incidents unless he himself had been present or if he had been able to verify them by means of several independent sources.

 

The Tiberius thing : yes, I should have known that. But the way Tacitus uses names, especially Caesar, is very confusing : if the translators hadn't worked out for us whom he is exactly talking about when he uses that name and put it in brackets for us [me], it would be hard to make any sense at all of some passages. My reaction to reading Tiberius' name there was : did I miss something ? What is he doing here all of a sudden ? I thought he was in Rome. Forgetting that at the time you didn't necessarily have to be anywhere near the place to win a significant military victory.

 

Vale,

 

Formosus

[Maty]

Has anyone had a look at this article?

 

Best, E.E., 'The literate Roman soldier' The Classical Journal 62 (1966), 122-127.

 

It was on my research list, but I didn't track it down in time for when I needed it, so I still haven't.