Empire State: How the Roman Military Built an Empire

Introduction

The Roman state was the principal political force within the empire, intricately involved in all economic activities geared to supporting its infrastructure and own continuance. Yet, as a patrician institution, it also had other responsibilities, with political, economic and social roles which were often related. In an age before the advent of a civil service, nationalised industries and a free market able to fund major capital expenditure projects, to fulfil these responsibilities it turned to the only tool at its disposal, namely the military, the largest institution within the empire.

These armed forces of Rome, particularly those of the later Republic and Principate, are rightly regarded as some of the finest military formations ever to engage in warfare. In their time, the legions, auxilia and regional navies of Rome were pre-eminent, masters of most fields and seas of battle in which they engaged. Less well known however is their use by the State as tools for such non-military activities in political, economic and social contexts. In this capacity, they were central instruments for the emperor and his provincial governors and procurators to ensure the smooth running of the Empire, making sure each province paid its keep into the imperial fiscus (treasury). As Goldsworthy (2003, 145) says:

Roman Emperors governed with the aid of only a very small civilian bureaucracy, and frequently called upon the army to perform many non-military tasks, simply because there was no one else available.

The use of the military in this regard also served another function, namely to keep the various components of the armed forces of Rome busy when not engaged in military activity. Simply put, it was not wise to allow such elite troops to lie idle for too long lest they begin to agitate.

In this book, the use of the military for such non-conflict related duties is considered in detail for the first time. To enable the narrative to run freely, the book is specifically broken down into a number of chapters each telling a key part of this story. In the first instance in Chapter 1, the scene is set for the following chapters by providing background on the Roman Principate, by giving detail on the Roman transport network so vital to the military in all of its roles, and finally discussing the nature of the Roman economy. Chapter 2 then takes the story forward with a detailed consideration of all aspects of the Roman military with a particular focus on the legionaries, auxilia and regional navies and including a discussion on current thinking with regard to Roman military identity, with Chapter 3 then examining the command and control of the empire from the emperor downwards to explore the means by which the military would have been employed by the state for non-military tasks. Here, the first detailed scrutiny of the military in such major roles is examined, namely administering and policing the empire, providing a firefighting resource and facilitating the games in the arena.

Sequential chapters will then review in detail the use of the military in very specific non-conflict roles. The first, and best known, is in their capacity as engineers. Today there is a very clear distinction between the activities of military and civil engineers, this in a British context dating back to at least 1760 when John Smeaton advertised himself as an engineer for hire. In the Roman world, however, there was no such clear distinction, and so if the state required a great engineering task to be undertaken then it was the military who were deployed in this capacity. The military was a resource well capable of such tasks, with even the lowliest legionary, auxilia or naval milites (a catch-all term for soldier) being a trained engineer, and with the major military formations featuring specialist engineers of all kinds (note that this work specifically doesn’t cover siege engineering in the field). A separate chapter will then look at the role of these military engineers of all levels and kinds in some of the great construction projects of the empire.

Next, the role of the Roman military in the running of industry across the Roman Empire is examined, particularly the metalla¹ mining and quarrying industries. The subject of my own MA research at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL, and more recently my PhD research at the University of Kent, this is an area of particular importance to this work given the new findings and interpretations I will present.

A final specific focus of this work will be an examination of the role played by the military in agriculture throughout the empire. Despite the headline-grabbing nature of the military’s role facilitating industry, it was agriculture that was by far the most important component of the Roman economy, and therefore the military’s role in this regard is particularly important. This chapter will be followed by a conclusion which includes a review of the preceding chapters to present a holistic appraisal of the use of the Roman military in a non-fighting capacity as a key tool of the state, an analysis of how this role changed as the empire progressed from its Principate to Dominate phase (with a particular focus on the reform of the imperial administration by Diocletian in his reformation), and finally a reflection on how this research has enabled us to see the Roman military in a way distinct from the view that they were ‘other’ when compared to the rest of the society they served. The book also has four appendices to act as guides for the relevant chapters in the book, beginning with a review of the geology of the south-east of Britain which is very pertinent to Chapter 4’s study of the Roman military as engineers and Chapter 6’s analysis of Roman metalla in Britain (given the examples I use). Next featured is a distribution table for Upper Medway Valley ragstone across the south-east of Britain, again to inform Chapters 4 and 6, followed by a distribution table showing the locations and totals of Classis Britannica stamped tiles, to inform the relevant section on the Roman tile and brick industries in Chapter 4. Finally, given the importance in the book of examples from Britain, I include a timeline of the key developments in the province throughout its occupation by Rome. The book ends with a list of references and bibliography to allow the reader to pursue their own research on the subjects covered here.

Note that this work features both a re-examination of existing appreciations of the Roman military carrying out various civilian activities, though uniquely bringing together the various strands and themes in this regard into a single volume for the first time, together with some new cutting edge research found here in print, also for the first time. This latter is specifically with regard to my PhD research into the Roman military running state industries in the province of Britain, and particularly the industrial scale iron manufacturing industry in the Weald and ragstone quarrying industry of the Upper Medway Valley (which built a large amount of Roman London). Until their demise in the mid-3rd century these industries, and their supporting industrial and transport infrastructure, effectively represented the industrial heartland of Roman Britain (on a scale never to be replicated through the rest of the occupation). They are specifically addressed as two case studies in Chapter 6.

In terms of chronology, given the vast breadth of the subject matter, the focus of this book is mainly on the military forces of the Principate (namely from the coming to power of Augustus in 27 BC to the end of the ‘Crisis of the 3rd Century’ with the accession of Diocletian in AD 284). That is not to say that the Roman military were not similarly employed in non-conflict tasks in the Republic or later during the Dominate phase, but focusing on the empire at its Principate height allows a tighter focus on specific examples. It was during the Principate that the empire expanded to its greatest extent, under the great soldier Emperor Trajan, with his conquests in Dacia north of the Balkans and along the eastern frontier. After his reign, however, the continuous outward expansion experienced by the empire ceased, to be replaced from Hadrian onwards with a policy of consolidation (D’Amato, 2016, 6). It is from this time we begin to see the formalisation of the borders of the empire, with for example the construction of Hadrian’s Wall (dubbed limes Britannicus) in Britain and the limes Germanicus along the Rivers Rhine and (partially) Danube. This transition, broadly, from offence to defence is reflected in the use of the military for non-conflict purposes and is a journey evident in the chapters that follow. Also of note, given the focus of the research presented here on the Principate, while the book does consider in detail the early military reforms of Septimius Severus in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD, it doesn’t those of Diocletian or Constantine from the late 3rd into the 4th centuries AD (excepting referencing them in the conclusion in Chapter 8).

Evidence of all kinds underpins the research which has allowed me to write this book to the level of detail I intended when I first set out on the project. The starting point was my PhD and earlier MA research (including an earlier MA in War Studies from KCL), particularly that focusing on Roman industry (iron manufacturing, ragstone quarrying and millstone production) in Kent during the occupation, and the role the military played therein. Types of evidence used in the research include the archaeological record, which has provided much of the hard data on which my theories are based, the historical record (including wherever possible primary sources, contemporary epigraphy and itineraries, though noting in the case of the first their often questionable impartiality), scientific observation, analogy and (where appropriate) anecdote. Where the data has been ambiguous or contradictory I have used common sense to make a judgment on what I believe to be the truth, particularly where primary references on key issues such as the mechanisms of imperial government are few and far between and only describe events in a particular snapshot of time.

Regarding classical and modern names, I have attempted to ensure that the research is as accessible as possible. For example, I have used the current name when a place or city is mentioned, referencing the Roman name at its first point of use. Meanwhile, where a classical name for a given post or role is well understood, for example legate, I use that, referencing the modern name in brackets at the point of first use. When emperors are detailed in the main body of the text, which is a frequent occurrence as one might imagine, I have listed the dates of their reign when each individual is first mentioned. Meanwhile, where permanent fortifications are detailed (as opposed to marching camps), I have used the hierarchy currently used by those studying the Roman military, this based on their size. Specifically, these are fortress (a permanent base for one or more legions, of some 20ha or more), vexillation fortress (a large fort of between 8 and 12ha, holding a mixed force of legionary cohorts and auxiliaries), fort (a garrison outpost occupied by an auxiliary unit or units, some 1 to 6ha in size) and fortlet (a small garrison outpost large enough to hold only part of an auxiliary unit).

In this book, the province of Britannia is frequently used as an example, and therefore a note of explanation regarding its political organisation is required. Until the reforms of Britain by Septimius Severus/Caracalla in AD 211/212 (initiated in AD 197), the term ‘province’ in relation to this north-western most outpost of Empire references the original single province of Britannia. After their reforms the term references either Britannia Superior or Britannia Inferior depending on the context, sometimes in fact both. After the Diocletianic reformation, with its establishment of the diocese of Britannia with its four (and perhaps later five) provinces, given the complexity the full name of each is detailed for clarity. The four definite later provinces within the diocese, as detailed on the Verona List of AD 303–314, are Maxima Caesariensis, Flavia Caesariensis, Britannia Prima and Britannia Secunda. These are then listed again a century later in the Notitia Dignitatum which adds the fifth province, namely Valentia.

Again relevant specifically to the province of Britannia but equally important elsewhere, with regard to the academic terminology I use in this book I have specifically steered away from the concept of Romanisation popular in Roman archaeology since Millett (1990a, 1) definitively promoted the idea to a contemporary audience. This is because from the onset of the Roman occupation in Britain many processes and social changes unfolded, and in that regard I want to avoid being side-tracked in the debate about its perceived inability to capture the processes and outcomes of cultural change, and the tendency to associate the term with modern concepts of Imperialism (Gardner, 2013, 2). I have, however, retained the word Romanitas, given its usefulness as a descriptor for manifestations of (especially elite) Roman culture that are visible in the Roman landscape (in the form for example of villas, coin use and modes of burial).

Given the importance of the built environment to this work a framework is also required to define different types of settlement. For towns, I have used the convention of three different kinds, each with a different legal status. The first were the coloniae, chartered towns featuring Roman citizens who were often discharged veteran troops. Good examples in Britain include Colchester, Gloucester and Lincoln, all featuring strong evidence of the use of the Roman military in their construction and maintenance. Secondly there are the municipia, also chartered towns but with a mercantile origin, in Britain being represented by St Albans among others. Finally, one has civitas capitals, the Roman equivalent in Britain of a county town featuring the local government of a given region. These were most often located on the site of their equivalent pre-Roman centres, for example Canterbury, previously the principal settlement of the Cantiaci (Mattingly, 2006, 260). Next, moving down in scale, one has small towns (first definitively distinguished from their larger counterparts by Malcolm Todd, 1970, 114), which are defined as a variety of diverse settlements which existed throughout the Empire and which usually had an association with a specific activity, for example administration, industry or religion (with many also being located at key transport nodes). Continuing down the scale, one then has villa-estate settlements, mostly rural in nature but in the context of this work sometimes also associated with industry (where a link with the Roman military may be evident, see Chapter 6). These are then followed by non-villa settlements, those where there is a lack of evident displays of Romanitas as defined above, and finally – and again important to this work – industrial sites (which could be of any size, see discussion in The Roman Economy in Chapter 1 below).

Also important in this book, especially when discussing the administrators of the Roman Empire and the officers of the Roman military, is the social structure of Roman society, especially at the upper end. In terms of the ranking of the ‘leisure classes’, at the top was the senatorial class, endowed with ‘moral excellence’, wealth and high birth. These were followed by the equestrian class, with slightly less wealth but a reputable lineage, and finally the curial class (again with the bar set slightly lower). The latter were largely mid-level landowners and merchants, they making up a large percentage of the town councillors across the empire.

Lastly, I would like to thank those who have made this work on the Roman military in all of their non-conflict roles possible. Firstly, Professor Andrew Lambert of the War Studies Department at KCL, Dr Andrew Gardner at UCL’s Institute of Archaeology, and Dr Steve Willis at the University of Kent for their ongoing guidance and encouragement. Standing on the shoulders of giants indeed! Next, my publisher, Clare Litt of Oxbow Books, for believing in this work. Also Dr Paul Wilkinson of the Kent Archaeological Field School, Dr Gustav Milne at UCL, Jeremy Hodgkinson of the Wealden Iron Working Group, Sam Moorhead at the British Museum, Dr Ian Betts at Museum of London Archaeology, Meriel Jeater at the Museum of London, Professor Sir Barry Cunliffe of the School of Archaeology at Oxford University, Professor Martin Millett at the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge University, Ray Chitty of the Medway River Users Association, Jim Bowden for his guidance regarding engineering and construction techniques and finally my patient proof readers Adrian Nash and my lovely wife Sara. All have contributed greatly and freely to my wider research, enabling this work to reach fruition. Finally, of course I would like to thank my family, including my always supportive and tolerant wife Sara once again, children Alex (himself a student of military history) and Lizzie, brother Tim and his family, and my mum and dad. All have been a terrific source of encouragement. Thank you all.

Simon Elliott

December 2016

1. Hirt (2010, 50), in his detailed examination of imperial mine and quarry administration, says that most contemporary literary sources (for example the 1st- and 2nd-century jurist Ulpian) understood the term metallum to mean a location where stone, metals and other resources were extracted, with metalla thus being a term appropriate for both mines and quarries. That convention is therefore used here.

Chapter 1

Background

In this chapter, a number of themes relevant to all aspects of the use of the Roman military in non-conflict roles are examined in detail to provide background for all subsequent chapters, the aim being to create foundations for a deeper understanding of the concepts and ideas which follow. The specific themes are a broad though concise description of the Roman Empire during the Principate, a description of the Roman transport network (a vital thread running through the entire book), and finally an outline of the Roman economic system to provide context for the civilian roles of the military.

The Principate Empire

As detailed in the Introduction, the Principate is the name given to the Roman Empire from the accession of Augustus in 27 BC (died AD 14) to the ending of the ‘Crisis of the 3rd Century’ with the accession of Diocletian in AD 284 (died AD 311, though having abdicated as emperor in AD 305). The name is derived from the term princeps (meaning chief or master), the principal citizen of the empire in the form of a single emperor, thus carrying on the deceit that the emperor was simply Rome’s leading citizen. In this way, particularly with regard to the early emperors, the empire could be explained away to contemporary audiences as a simple continuance of the earlier Republic. This masquerade was formally abandoned with the onset of the Dominate (based on the word Dominus, meaning master or lord) from which point the sanctity of the emperor was officially promoted as something extraordinary, separating him from the rest of the Roman citizenry, this reflecting eastern despotic customs.

The official title adopted by Augustus (originally Octavian), when he emerged victorious from the vicious round of Roman civil wars following the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, was princeps senatus/princeps civitatis (first among senators/first among citizens), intended to disguise the fact that he was in reality the emperor. It is from this time that we talk about the Roman Empire, not Republic. His timing couldn’t have been better, with the political leadership and people of Rome willing to accept a degree of dictatorial control after the preceding political turbulence that had seen vast swathes of the Roman aristocracy backing the wrong horse in the various bids for power and suffering the often fatal consequences (this peace dubbed the Pax Romana). He chose his title carefully, particularly the princeps senatus component which traditionally referenced the eldest member of the Senate who was allowed to speak first in a debate. This fiction that the emperor continued with the governing traditions of the Republic existed for much of the Principate, even when Augustus’ dynastic ambitions emerged early on. Successive emperors wrapped themselves in the archaic traditions of the Republic to maintain a pretence that in reality few citizens fell for, manifest in the continued adoption by the State of the phrase Senatus Populusque Romanus (the Senate and People of Rome, SPQR) to describe their system of rule (which referenced the pre-imperial oligarchic self-rule of the Republic). In reality though, the Senate now only issued its senatus consulta (decrees) at the pleasure of the emperor. The position of the emperor within this Principate system of government was later formalised by Emperor Vespasian (AD 69–79), with the position of the princeps becoming an entity in its own right, though still within a system which maintained the pretence of being a republic. The major change now, in addition to the adoption of the term imperator (emperor) for the first time, was that the ruler had the right to nominate his successor (even though this had in fact been the practice since the time of Augustus) rather than having to dress this up as an imperial nomination based on auctoritas (merit).

Within the Principate there were distinct dynasties which provide a chronological framework for the wider study of the Roman military in their non-conflict activities. These are as follows (Kean, 2005, 18):

•The Julio-Claudian dynasty from the accession of Augustus in 27 BC (though taking in the preceding civil wars) to the death of Nero in AD 68 (having become emperor in AD 54). This included the beginnings of empire, the destruction of three legions at the hands of the Germans in the Battle of Teotoberg Forest in AD 9, and the initial conquest campaigns in Britain.

•The Year of the Four Emperors in AD 69.

•The Flavian dynasty from the accession of Vespasian to the death of Domitian in AD 96 (having become emperor in AD 81). This included the conclusion of the Jewish Great Revolt of AD 66–70.

•The Nervo-Trajanic dynasty from the accession on Nerva in AD 96 (died AD 98) to the death of Hadrian in AD 138 (having become emperor in AD 117). This included Trajan’s (emperor AD 98–117) conquest of Dacia in two campaigns from AD 101–102 and AD 105–106, famously recorded for posterity on Trajan’s Column in Rome. Under Hadrian, it also marked the point at which the empire ceased to be one always on the offensive and looking to expand its territory, becoming one of consolidation and ultimately defence.

•The Antonine dynasty from the accession of Antoninus Pius in AD