The Loyalty of the Roman Legions

**Trajan** · June 30, 2006, 12:23 AM

As I was contemplating why the Roman Legionary fought, Spiff brought up a well known fact that completely eluded me and that is the majority of the legions were loyal to their General and not to the state or empire. Because of this loyalty, the Empire was crippled by multiple civil wars over the years for the title of Emperor. After the death of Nero, which was the end of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty, several men such as Servius Sulpicius Galba, Marcus Salvius Otho, Aulus Vitellius, and Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus vied for title of Emperor from 68-69 AD. As Galba failed to secure his role as Emperor with his corrupted and perverse form of government, the army revolted against him and swore their allegiance to the Senate and the people of Rome and demanded a new Emperor. It was so bad for Galba that Commander Hordeonius Flaccus of Upper Germany couldn't get his troops to renew their loyalty to Galba. Galba's next mistake was to appoint Lucius Calpurnius Piso Licinianus as his son and heir which greatly angered Marcus Salvius Otho. Otho wanted to be Emperor himself and so he conspired with the Praetorian Guard to get rid of Galba and his newly announced heir. In 69 AD, the Praetorians murdered Galba and Piso in the forum, cut their heads and presented it to Otho.

Marcus Salvius Otho was very popular within the army and he used this popularity and the distaste the army had for Galba to easily convince the Praetorians to murder Galba and secure his role as the new Emperor. Even though the man had very few links to the army, he depended more on the soldier's support then any of his predecessors. Since he wasn't in constant contact with the army, he couldn't hold their favor for him and General Aulus Vitellius soon had wide spread support from the army to overthrow Otho. Emperor Otho did his best to avoid civil war by offering Co-Emperorship to Vitellius but Vitellius didn't want to share power so his Legions began their march into Italy. Otho did still have support from the Danubian legions which gave him the advantage of superior forces but the problem was they had to march from the Danube all the way to Italy. Otho needed all the time he could get but Vitellius' generals Valens and Caecina knew this and so they built a bridge over the Po River crossing into Italy. Instead of giving himself more time for the Danubian legions to come to his aid by retreating deeper into Italy, he chose to make a stand and fight it out with the legions he had at his disposal. Otho's legions were defeated in the Battle of Cremona, 69 AD. Othos wasn't at the battle, he was in Brixellum and after hearing of his defeat, he chose to commit suicide in order to end this civil war.

Aulus Vitellius, who wasn't even a military man and had no knowledge of military warfare, was given the command of the Lower Germany legions by Galba. Because of the hatred the legions of Upper and Lower Germany had for Emperor Galba for refusing them a reward for their part in the suppression of Julius Vindex, Vitellius easily gained his legions support and had them set out for Italy in the command of General Valens and Caecina to overthrow Emperor Otho. After his legions defeated Otho at Cremona and hearing of Otho's suicide, the newly appointed Emperor marched into Rome in a glorious triumph. Emperor Vitellius then proceeded to gain the loyalty of the other legions across the Empire through couriers. Vitellius knew that he was Emperor only because of the German legions and so he rewarded them by disbanding the Praetorian Guard and Urban Cohorts and giving his men their jobs. He also realized that if he was to anger or disappoint his legions, they could remove him just like they did to Otho. Here's where the loyalty of legions plays an important role again. After three months as Emperor, word was getting around that the Eastern legions were beginning to revolt. A battle hardened General by the name of Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus, was gaining wide spread support from the Eastern legions. By July 1st, Vespasianus finally had enough support to march on Italy and overthrow Vitellius. One of Vitellius Generals, Caecina, tried to change his allegiance from Vitellius to Vespasianus but didn't have the loyalty of his troops and was quickly arrested. General Primus of the 6th legion in Pannonia and Cornelius Fuscus, imperial procurator in Illyricum, declared their allegiance to Vespasianus and invaded Italy with around five legions, 30,000 men. The decisive battle was fought yet again in Cremona in Oct. 24, 69 AD with Vitellius as the loser. A couple of months later, the legions of Primus and Fuscus marched on Rome, fighting their way into the city and found the brave Emperor Vitellius hiding in a door-keepers lodge in the palace with a bunch of furniture sealing the door. The Danubian legions broke the door down and found Vitellius disguised in filthy clothes with a money belt around his waist. Vitellius was then dragged out onto the streets of Rome, half naked, all the way to the forum where he was tortured and killed. His body was then thrown into the Tiber River ending the short reign of Emperor Vitellius and the first crisis in Rome. With Vespasian as Emperor, he had the supreme loyalty of the army and would never fear another revolt as long as he lived.

This all proves that one of Rome's greatest weaknesses was its army’s loyalties to their Generals. Once an Emperor was firmly established with general consent he did not need to fear revolt unless he made himself hated by the army or more importantly, the Praetorian Guard. No matter how long Rome remained an empire, the succession of its Emperors would always be determined by the support of the legions and the Praetorian Guard. When it all comes down to it, Rome foolishly weakened itself by constant civil wars by it's legions who wanted their General to become Emperor. If the legions remained loyal to the Senate and the people of Rome instead of declaring their loyalty to their Generals, would Rome have remained a Republic until its end? Would it have still evolved into an Empire controlled by one man instead of a body of elected senators? In many ways the tale of Rome truly goes hand and hand with Durant’s saying, "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."

**antaeus** · June 30, 2006, 01:20 AM

its a good point.

most of romes soldiers were recruited outside italy by the second century. places such as gaul, illyria, thrace etc. they were places where strong war leaders were respected above hereditary or weak kings and chiefs. leaders had to prove themselves in war to be respectable. once they joined the legions this prestiege was simply transfered to the generals.. also of note however, was the obvious down side. the legions were quick to punish a losing general, as they would have been generations earlier to a failed war chieftan

**CrayonVonCaesar** · June 30, 2006, 02:41 AM

The reasons for their allegiance to 4 different 'Emperors' during 68/69 was not that they were disloyal to the state but because by this time the state and the Emperor had become the same thing. Soldiers swore Alleigance originally to the Senate and Roman People, but by this time they swore to the Emperor and his Generals.

When the loathed Nero died there was no successor, and no successor ment no oath of loyalty. So the men in the Legions naturally looked to the next obvious authority, their General. If this man had enough backing from other high ranking men he would think 'why not me?'
The julio-claudians were gone and the secret of empire was out, Emperors could be made.

Vespasian though, stabilised the Empire and brought back respect for the position of Emperor through his example of leadership.
The realisation of the precarious position of the Emperor was put back in its cage and it stayed there, despite the murder of domitian right up until the murder of the dreadful Commodus, and the killing of the senators chosen succesor, Pertinax.

Septimius Severus finally emerged 4 years later from the civil war that followed as sole Leader in 197. And, despite the early deaths of all of his succesors, it wasnt until 235 with the brutal killing which ended the noble Alexander Severus' 13 year reign and replacement by a brutal plebian army officer that the gloss was truly removed from the position and so the soldiers raised, followed and murdered as they chose so giving the '3rd century crisis' a large part of its meaning.

Originally Posted by antea

its a good point.

most of romes soldiers were recruited outside italy by the second century. places such as gaul, illyria, thrace etc. they were places where strong war leaders were respected above hereditary or weak kings and chiefs. leaders had to prove themselves in war to be respectable. once they joined the legions this prestiege was simply transfered to the generals.. also of note however, was the obvious down side. the legions were quick to punish a losing general, as they would have been generations earlier to a failed war chieftan

50% of legionaires were of Italian stock during Augustus' reign, but by the time of Trajan only around 10% were.
But, these troops were still Roman citizens and indeed considered themselves Roman.
Gaul and thrace had been roman provinces for well over a century by the time of Vespasian and illyria was conquered over 200 years previous.
Their reasons for attempting to raise a general to the position of emperor or for killing a general had little to do with which province the soldiers were originally from.
All were citizens.

The men of these regions should not be confused with the many 'barbarian' soldier/mercenaries of the Late Empire, in which case you would be closer to the mark.

**Spiff** · June 30, 2006, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by CrayonVonCaesar

The reasons for their allegiance to 4 different 'Emperors' during 68/69 was not that they were disloyal to the state but because by this time the state and the Emperor had become the same thing. Soldiers swore Alleigance originally to the Senate and Roman People, but by this time they swore to the Emperor and his Generals.

It was happening before then too of course, as i mentioned in the other thread, both Sulla and Caesar managed to convince their legions that marching on Rome was the right thing to do in relatively quick succession (round about 88BC, 83BC and 49BC?). I cant imagine the average soldier wrestling with his conscience for days afterwards, fearing they had commited a mortal sin against the Republic, indeed, the were probably convinced by the generals themselves that what they were doing was for the good of the Republic.

I think after years and years of being camped away from home in some remote part of the world apparently on orders from the senate, you might come to appreciate the efforts of the general working with you to keep you alive on a daily basis.

**Locky** · June 30, 2006, 07:24 AM

Hmm. Well the Legionnaires, were Romes reason for success, also they ultimately helped to lead to it's downfall. And notabely the the Praetorian guard had a tendcy to involve itself politically, favouring emporers, that generally bribed them, or they thought would best serve their interests. So in reality, they spent more time fighting themselfs, rather then their enemies, which evetually undermined them from in. Good soldiers they were, but often used for a generals own whims, rather then their intended purpose. Which i guess would be to defend Rome, ironically, they helped to destroy it, lol.

**Spiff** · June 30, 2006, 07:30 AM

But is that the soldiers fault, or the power hungry nature of many of romes finest leaders who simply use their men as a means to a political end. But then i suppose roman history was always about power grabbing, it just became more and more exagerated as the empire grew until the politics took on a more epic scale.

**Locky** · June 30, 2006, 07:53 AM

Oh, in reality they were very loyal. But they were used as pawns, much like pawns in a game of chess. They're very useful, in fact the back bone, but are abused, for emporers personal gain. Power hungry leaders did it, the Legionnaires followed them for valid reasons(most of the time).

**Konig** · June 30, 2006, 10:11 AM

That was the real flaw of the marian reforms. Despite creating the most efficient war machine, making the Generals the ones responsible for the legion's pay and livelyhood did turn the soldiers loyalties to their general instead of the senate, regardless of any oaths they migh have taken.

**Trajan** · June 30, 2006, 08:29 PM

Nice, you guys all bring good points. Most likely, the soldiers were almost like puppets and the Generals and Emperors were the puppet masters if they won the support of their men. Having the command of legions, if you could win the hearts of your men like the way Caesar did, you would have great power. That's why during the Republic, if you had the political office of Consul, you were basically king in all but name which is why of course, they had a short term of office. What could stop such a man who had such power from becoming a dictator? Boy, I wish I could go back in time to see and most importantly hear how Caesar convinced his men to cross the Rubicon. That must have been a momentous moment for everybody that was there in the camp. The loyalty of Caesar's legions was everything to Caesar at the end of his Gallic campaign. What would have happened if Caesar's men said no, we will not betray the Senate and the People of Rome? We will not cross the Rubicon and break one of Rome's most sacred laws. What would Caesar have done? Would the Republic have survived, at least a little bit longer? Caesar was an incredible man who possessed great leadership abilities and he actually cared and had compassion for his men which is something not all Generals did. It's not hard to understand why his men agreed to do the unthinkable and follow him past the Rubicon.

**antaeus** · June 30, 2006, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by CrayonVonCaesar

50% of legionaires were of Italian stock during Augustus' reign, but by the time of Trajan only around 10% were.
But, these troops were still Roman citizens and indeed considered themselves Roman.
Gaul and thrace had been roman provinces for well over a century by the time of Vespasian and illyria was conquered over 200 years previous.
Their reasons for attempting to raise a general to the position of emperor or for killing a general had little to do with which province the soldiers were originally from.
All were citizens.

The men of these regions should not be confused with the many 'barbarian' soldier/mercenaries of the Late Empire, in which case you would be closer to the mark.

i am not confusing them with barbarians, i am simply stating that they were different ethnic and cultural stock to italian soldiers with different cultural values. they may have been romans and civilized but it takes more than a hundred years to remove cultural values that have roots extending back into history. you only have to look at how fast celtic britain de-romanised itself in the 6th century for proof of this.

you could look at other times for proofs or comparrisons, where none exsist from roman times.. look at soviet russia, religion was discouraged, yet it has emerged stronger than ever after 80 years of soviet rule. ethnic differences have almost been magnified by the 3/4 of a century of sterile uniformity of culture.

scotland has been ruled by england for as long as gaul was ruled by rome, wales even longer, yet scotish identity and cultural individuality co exsists with the greater british nation... the welsh have even retained their language despite the fact that they all consider themselves british citizens - indeed scotish soldiers are considered as superior soldiers distinct from their english counterparts within the british army - this difference is culturally deeper than the language the soldier speaks.

**Kscott** · June 30, 2006, 08:47 PM

When it all comes down to it, Rome weakened and later destroyed itself by constant civil wars by it's legions who wanted their General to become Emperor.

Not entirely. I think my essay fall of the eagle will illustrate why the Roman Empire fell pretty well

Marian reforms certainly destroyed the Republic for sure, but the Empire? Rome survived the Third Century Crisis.

i am not confusing them with barbarians, i am simply stating that they were different ethnic and cultural stock to italian soldiers with different cultural values. they may have been romans and civilized but it takes more than a hundred years to remove cultural values that have roots extending back into history. you only have to look at how fast celtic britain de-romanised itself in the 6th century for proof of this.

Romman Elite were being trained by provincial Gauls in latin Grammer. Hell, Trier which was originally settled as a city for a germanic tribe(well it was a fort first, but its first form as a settlement). It eventually became the capital of Emporer Valentinian and many others. It had a bath second only to Rome. Britian was really a backwater province and should not be used as the general rule. Truly, I think you would find it hard to find a difference between a Roman in Gaul and a Roman in Italy, Rome was an expert at diffusion.

**Trajan** · July 01, 2006, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Kscott

Not entirely. I think my essay fall of the eagle will illustrate why the Roman Empire fell pretty well

Haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

True, the Roman Empire collapsed from within due to many reasons but the constant civil wars they had must have played a role in it one way or another. I really have to familiarize myself with the history of the late Roman Empire because I would like to fully understand why the legions became so weak near the end.

I've heard stories that they were commanded by poor Generals, the legions decreased in man power due to Roman citizens preferring to cut off their thumbs rather then join or fight in the legions, the quality of the legionaires were drastically lower compared to when Rome had sheer military dominance, and etc. :hmmm: Hmmm, I wonder if my book, "The Complete Roman Army" details why the Roman war machine ceased to be a war machine at all near the end.