The Roman Army, 31 BC–AD 337: A Sourcebook

The army in the field 89
The two legions are II and III Italicae, recruited by Marcus, and the detachments
were sent to fortify Salonae.
149 BGU 2492, with Rea 1977, papyrus, Egypt, 2nd C.AD
I therefore ask you, mother, that you write to me about yourself. What
did you do in Memphis? Do not fail. You should know that Gemellus
has joined the fleet; he said to me: ‘Your mother is going to court with
your father in Memphis, before the chief justice’. Please, mother, as
soon as you receive this letter send Germanus to me, because the word
is that our cohort is leaving for Mauretania. Up to the moment, the ala
of Moors and the cohort [ _ _ _ ] of Africans have left. That cohort is
being brought up to full strength by men from our cohort; men from
three years of enrolment (?) are leaving . . .
This letter from a soldier in Egypt shows that despite local recruitment and
permanent camps, it was always possible for a soldier to be posted permanently
or temporarily to another province. Speidel (1981a) points out that ‘ala of
Moors’ is soldiers’ usage for the first Mauretanian ala of Thracians.
FIGHTING
As far as we can tell, the Romans had an organized but uncomplicated
approach to military tactics, in which the main principles were: the use
of cavalry for flank attacks and encirclement, the placing of a force in
reserve, the deployment of a combat line that could maintain contact,
readiness to counterattack, flexibility in the face of unexpected enemy
manoeuvres. Generals tended to look back to stratagems and tactics
successfully employed by previous commanders; this was possible in
an age of slow technological progress. However, the Romans were
capable of adapting tactics in an original way to suit immediate
requirements, e.g., in dealing with Parthian cavalry and archers.
Unfortunately Roman writers rarely discussed the technical organization
of the army or its battle preparations and tactics. The history of the
Roman army at war amounts to a series of vignettes relating to different
ages and circumstances. So, we know how the Romans won or lost
certain battles, but not who decided tactics or what factors influenced
this, or if there was an archive of official military battle plans, or if the
tactics described were typical, or how much notice contemporaries took
of new tactics. Army tactics and individual battles are discussed in
Connolly 1981; Keppie 1984a; Webster 1985; tactics and military text
books in Campbell 1987.
Furthermore, our sources and probably also emperors and their