5. MECANISMOS PARA EL CONTROL ESTRATÉGICO DE LA PERIFERIA
2.3. Etapa neoliberal: modelo de desenclave. Los campamentos mineros
possible royal connotations.
The aquila standard also appears in divination connected to another of the major figures of the period: Crassus. Before the disastrous battle of Carrhae, it is reported that the standards both did not want to be pulled from the ground and, when they were, turned in the opposite direction of their own accord.684 Again, though, these are later sources, although Valerius Maximus is writing only sixty years after the events compared to the nearly two hundred of Plutarch. Once again, it seems strange that none of these portents were related in the sources directly following the defeat and only appear in these later sources. However, this does not mean that the idea of the aquila providing portents was not present in this period. In fact, the ones reported about Crassus and Carrhae bear a striking resemblance to those reportedly ignored by Flaminius before the battle of Lake Trasimene, where once again the standard could not be pulled from the ground.685 Although this story is from the annalistic sources and its historicity is in question, the fact that the story existed in the first century B.C. is certain. This means the interpretation and symbolism behind these aquila divinations can certainly be applied to this period. What these stories imply is that not only could the gods work through the animal but through the standards. It was not common to see inanimate objects as the subject of divination or portents and when it was, for example the Spear of Mars,686 it was only the most sacred of objects. Thus, the standard must have been viewed as one of these most sacred of objects, an idea which will be discussed in more depth below.687
4.4: Martial and State Connections
This section is also divided into two parts. The first section deals with the aquila and the standards in the legion and the notion of legionaries dying for their protection. The second section is an examination of the metaphorical standard-bearer in Cicero’s literature.
4.4.1: Dying for the aquila.
As discussed in Chapter 2,688 Marius’ reforms are the first point where the existence of the aquila standard can be confirmed by the contemporary sources of the period. Pliny states that Marius made the aquila the legionary standard689 and certainly by Catiline690 and Caesar691 this was the case.
This section will attempt to identify aspects of the aquila’s symbolism that are attached in this first
684 Cass. Dio. 40.17.3-18.2; Plut. Vit. Crass. 19.3; Val. Max. 1.6.11.
685 Cic. Div. 1.77; and later in Liv. 22.3.11; Val. Max. 1.6.6.
686 Aul. Gell. 4.6.1; Cass. Dio. 44.17.2.
687 See below, p.181.
688 See above, p.34.
689 Plin. HN. 10.5.
690 Sall. Cat. 59.3.
691 Caes. B Gall. 4.25; 3.64.3-4; 3.99.4.
90
period of its use as the legionary standard. Before addressing this problem, though, an issue with the scholarship of the Roman army must be discussed. Nearly all scholarship that deals with the Roman army, and thus its standards, relies on evidence from a huge range of periods. The standard works on the subject (Keppie, Webster, Watson, and Goldsworthy to name a few)692 back up their points with evidence from Caesar in the mid-first century B.C. to Vegetius in the fourth century A.D. While this approach helps build a large and accurate picture of the ‘imperial’ Roman army, it does not allow for change over time. To combat this wider approach to the study of the army this section willconcentrate on the sources of the first century B.C. and attempt, whenever possible, to isolate this evidence from the later sources. Hopefully this will present a more accurate picture of the aquila in this period.
What is certain is that by early in this century the aquila had gained its status as the premier standard of the legions. Various pieces of contemporary evidence point to this conclusion. It appears on coinage for the first time in c.82 (Fig 4.17). This coin, produced by Sulla, shows the aquila on the reverse and Victory on the obverse and is associated with Sulla’s war against Sertorius.693 The coin is produced for a military audience and thus implies the legionaries must have been familiar with the standard by this point. This century is also when the first contemporary account of the loyalty that the legionaries had towards the aquila is presented. In Caesar’s works one centurion leaps into the sea during the invasion of Britain; also, an aquilifer is slain whilst protecting his charge; and another passes his comrade the eagle to save Caesar’s reputation.694 Caesar’s commentaries are meant to be accurate reflections of the events; however, there is a probability that these events may be partly Caesarian invention. Even so, they must have been considered plausible by his readers and listeners and so their significance still stands. It is quite possible that this type of loyalty to the aquila/standards existed before the Marian reforms,695 and these types of incident appear in Livy, Silius, Plutarch, and Appian696 but since all these texts are post-Caesar, and these types of events are conspicuously absent from Polybius, it seems likely that this is a battle-scene trope taken from Caesar.697 Caesar’s accounts and the aquila’s appearance on coinage confirms that by this century it has assumed the role of premier standards of the legion.
But why are legionaries dying to protect it? At first this seems like an obvious question. After centuries of seeing this exact phenomenon within our military culture the idea of dying for a type of
692 Watson, 1969; Webster, 1969; Goldsworthy, 1996; Keppie, 1998; Potter, 2004.
693 Crawford, 1974: 381.
694 Caes. B Gall. 4.25; 5.37; B Civ. 3.64.3-4. The ‘brave centurion’ is somewhat of a trope in Caesar but that does not discount it as accurate, Welch, 1998: 90.
695 That is, however, if the aquila itself existed, see p.34.
696 App. B Civ. 2.9.61; 14.95; Liv. 10.36.10; 25.14.6-8; 26.5.15-17; 27.14.7-10; 34.46.12; 41.4.1; Plut. Vit. Aem.
20.1; Sil. Pun. 5.333-343; 6.14-40; 7.740-743, not only are these always part of battle scenes (the details of which are unreliable) they are all very similar. Additionally, the sources for earlier Roman history were unlikely to record this amount of detail (see the discussion above, p.34); Briscoe, 1981: 122.
697 It may also be that once this trope is established in Roman thought, it impacted on real events.
91
standard, or ‘flag’, seems second nature. However, these ideas can be misleading when studying the aquila. Not only does it seem that the Romans are the first culture to introduce this idea of ‘dying for the standard’,698 but it is worth stating simply that these individuals are going against their basic survival instincts in order to protect an inanimate object that has no real value. Its only value to them can be symbolic and it is worth exploring what symbolic value can lead these individuals to die for the aquila.One possible reason for the legionaries protecting the aquila and standards to the death may be revealed by a passage in Dionysius. He relates in the defence speech of Servilius that those who lost a standard in battle would be put to death by their generals.699 He is writing about an earlier point in Roman history (c.476) but presumably he is basing his accounts of Roman military practice on the contemporary Roman army (c.60). Discipline was an important aspect in the post-Marian army700 and the threat of death is certainly enough of a reason to defend the standards and to follow them into danger.701 However, Dionysius seems to be the only source that mentions this. No Roman sources, or even later sources, mention incidents where the aquilifer or signifer are put to death for failing in their duty to protect the standard. It may be that the threat of death was such a deterrent that no legionaries ever abandoned the standard to the enemy or that it was the general who decided the degree of punishment for this infraction. A possible law of Rufus from the early first century B.C. says that those who lost the standard were only ‘reduced to the bottom of the list of their own subordinates’ and not killed.702 More important, however, is that simple discipline is not enough to explain the
attachment to these standards (particularly why they would be chosen for coinage) and the possibility of this punishment seems symptomatic of the larger symbolic value that these standards had for the military community.
More likely is that the aquila and the standards symbolised the community of the legion.
Marius’ reforms seem to have brought with them an increased sense of esprit de corps within the legions. This was fostered by the introduction of a new training and discipline regime which meant the soldiers now spent every waking moment with their comrades.703 It was reinforced by the new identity given to each of the legions, now individually named and with their own legionary standard, the aquila. But what exactly is the esprit de corps of the legion? Goldsworthy’s examination of the motivations and morale of the Roman soldier is enlightening on this subject. By using modern
698 At least in the western world, and there seems to be no examples of such actions in either Greek or Persian military systems. However, sometimes in Greek warfare the commander or his corpse became a sort of talisman that was fought over, Her. 7.225.1; 9.22-23. This seems to be based on a Homeric model, Hom. Il.
16.485-683; 17.1-18.238; Flower, 1998: 375-377; Flower & Marincola, 2002: 143-144.
699 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 9.31.3.
700 Goldsworthy, 1996: 251; Potter, 2004: 84.
701 This fear is explained in reference to the pre-Marian army in Polyb. 1.17.12; 6.37.12; Lee, 1996: 203.
702 Military law from Rufus, quoted by Hegleland, 1978: 1475, but originally from Brand, 1968: 156.
703 Holmes, 1985: 31-37; Goldsworthy, 1996: 251-252; Potter, 2004: 81.