Scholars have often tried to write their way around the fundamental problem of balancing static sociological description of ancient institutions with their historical analysis of change over time through the structure of their work. For example, some popular narrative structures combine early chapters that focus on (often political)
chronological change and later chapters that focus on sociological, almost ethnographical description, with the final chapter focusing on the later Roman Empire.71 I have chosen a
different approach. Each chapter focuses on a specific factor in the transformation of the everyday experiences of auxiliary soldiers and their families, while also accounting for change over time. While at times the chronological ranges of each chapter do not align with each other, nevertheless, I believe that this structure allows the reader to trace
71 For example, M. P. Speidel (1994), chapters 1-3 and 10 are political chronological narratives, while 4-9
are sociological, with some acknowledgement of change over time. Similarly, in Haynes (2013), part 1 is chronological, parts 2-7 thematic or sociological.
23
patterns over time among a wide range of auxiliaries stationed throughout the Roman Empire.
Chapter two explores the role of the image of the soldier in Roman literature and its potential impact on the ideas of military officers and their treatment of soldiers under their command. Soldiers held an ambiguous place in the Roman imagination. On the one hand, soldiers were idealized as brave men who were at the heart of Rome’s
greatness. On the other hand, Roman elite feared the potential unruliness of soldiers and believed that strict discipline was required to maintain control at all times. After
reviewing the social and educational background of the military officers of auxiliary units, this chapter analyzes two works published in 30/31 CE, a period of stabilization and consensus-building in the reign of Tiberius. Writing for an increasingly more diverse elite audience, Valerius Maximus and Velleius Paterculus nevertheless shared an idealized vision of the military general in relation to soldiers. This image of the soldier remained fairly stable during the Roman Empire and, I argue, shaped not only the officers’ behavior towards their soldiers but also the self-image of the soldiers themselves.
Auxiliaries were more than just soldiers. Drawn largely from the non-citizen populations of the provinces, especially along the frontiers, auxiliaries in many ways were considered “barbarians” by the Roman elite. Literary images of “barbarians,” like that of soldiers, also played a major role in how Roman officers imagined the auxiliary soldiers under their command. Moreover, certain groups in the Empire were believed to have particular military qualities. Chapter three investigates the portrait of the
“barbarian” in the Roman imagination as found in literature of the late first century BCE through the early second centuries CE, focusing especially on two groups who may have
24
been considered “martial races” by the Romans, namely the Batavians and the Thracians. Heavily recruited for service in the auxiliaries, these peoples came to be regarded as fierce soldiers. The strength of these martial stereotypes was such that even the soldiers themselves began to adopt these qualities as their own, while at the same time they attempted to diminish the negative traits imparted on “barbarians.” Auxiliaries and their families navigated expectations about soldiers and “barbarians” on a daily basis, yet the range of possible reactions shows the diverse experiences of empire.
Ideas about auxiliaries based on their occupation and ethnicity were not the only factors that shaped their everyday life. The space of the military bases themselves, as well as the spatial ideologies held by Roman officials, also contributed to a soldier’s practice and ideas. Chapter four considers the anonymous, untitled, early second-century CE treatise on Roman military surveying, the so-called De munitionibus castrorum of Pseudo-Hyginus, and its view of the ideal Roman military camp. Placing this text in its historical and literary context, I argue that De mun. castr. reveals a subtle change in the Roman image of auxiliaries. While considered not nearly as reliable as legionaries, auxiliaries nevertheless were thought to be more trustworthy than other troops drawn from foreign peoples. Auxiliaries still navigated somewhere between “barbarian” and Roman, shaped, in part, by their increasingly professionalization as military units. While the De mun. castr. presents an ideal vision of a camp, frontier archaeology reveals more diversity. Tracing examples of auxiliary bases from the first-century Western provinces, second-century desert outposts in Egypt, and third-century urban based in Syria, this chapter argues not only that the spatial practices and experiences of auxiliaries were more diverse than previously imagined but also that the variety of soldiers themselves
25 contributed to this diversity.
I further explore the range of possible experiences for auxiliaries under the Empire in chapter five. Length of service, proximity to one’s homeland, and the degree of connection with the local population were all factors that affected an auxiliary soldier’s transformation during military service. Yet one of the most important factors, I argue, is the relation between the Roman state and the soldier’s native community, especially the length of time between the Roman conquest of the soldier’s homeland and the soldier’s service to Rome. Gallic auxiliaries patrolling the Alpine roads a generation or two after their people’s defeat by Rome would have been struck by the imposing monument of the Trophy of the Alps that advertised Rome’s power and defeat of these same tribes. In contrast, the Batavian auxiliaries stationed in Britain still maintained some degree of their own particular ethnic practices, in part by calling their commanding officer “king” and requesting beer to consume. Even recently conquered Dacians, shipped off to serve Rome in the desert stations of Egypt, continued to call themselves by their Dacian names, yet still managed to build relationships with local men and women. As these examples suggest, no single model can explain the divergent experiences of the soldiers involved. They did not simply transform from “barbarians” into Romans. Rather, auxiliary
soldiers, their families, and the communities around them evolved along with the Empire itself, subtly shaping and re-imaging the social and cultural life on the frontiers.
26
Chapter 2
The Image of the Soldier in Roman Thought & Practice