12.06.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

7 <strong>The</strong> army in politics<br />

Ancient commentators, even well-connected senators like Tacitus and<br />

Dio, experienced in administration and government, tended to examine<br />

imperial politics in terms of events and personalities rather than by<br />

analysis of long-term trends or political institutions, and there is no<br />

adequate discussion of the role of the army in politics. It was of course<br />

difficult for historians living under an autocratic monarchy to discuss<br />

sensitive political issues which might constitute what Tacitus called the<br />

‘secrets of ruling’, about which Sallustius Crispus, imperial confidant,<br />

advised Livia: ‘the accounts of empire will not add up unless the emperor<br />

is the only auditor’ (Annals, 1. 6).<br />

Augustus the military leader was the paymaster and benefactor of<br />

his troops, who were discreetly but effectively encouraged to identify<br />

with his family. But having acquired power and respectability, he<br />

intended that his political dependence on the army should never formally<br />

be recognized. In the Res Gestae there is no mention of this. Instead he<br />

chose to emphasize his accumulation of military honours as his armies<br />

defeated foreign peoples and fulfilled the imperial destiny of Rome.<br />

Although he was represented at times with the military attributes of a<br />

<strong>Roman</strong> imperator, he could not permanently assume the status and<br />

demeanour of a war lord. Augustus set a pattern for his successors by<br />

winning consent for his rule among the privileged classes through a<br />

display of traditional virtues in both the civil and military spheres, and<br />

by strictly controlling the army. Upper-class military commanders<br />

represented the point of contact between army and emperor, and would<br />

have been offended by signs of indiscipline and social upheaval. <strong>The</strong><br />

soldiers, who in any case lacked serious political consciousness, were<br />

entitled to pay and other emoluments in return for their quiescence,<br />

and their loyalty was conspicuously rewarded at the accession of an<br />

emperor and at other times crucial to the dynasty.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!