No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
II. Empire
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Extract
In the years following Actium, Augustus set out to secure for himself a monopoly of military power and glory, establish a legal basis for his control of the legions and direction of foreign policy, and build an army that could undertake a programme of continuous warfare. This last task was a considerable one; apart from the initial hurdle of paying off the thousands of weary and near-mutinous soldiers who had survived the civil wars, it was complicated by the political necessity of curtailing or materially reducing conscription in Italy. The army Augustus bequeathed to his successors was a body of professionals, serving for twenty-five years at the modest pay of 225 denarii a year (raised to 300 by Domitian) and with the prospect of a discharge payment of 3,000 denarii or the equivalent in land. The bulk of the legions, which were stationed in the Northern provinces, were made up of recruits – some conscripts, some volunteers – from the more Romanized West. Local and regional recruitment, for legionaries as well as auxiliaries, became the norm only after our period. The level set by Augustus of 28 legions, or about 168,000 men (plus roughly as many auxiliaries, recruited from non-citizens), was not raised significantly by later emperors.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 15: The Early Principate: Augustus to Trajan , 1982 , pp. 8 - 14
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982
References
Notes
1. 225 denarii were equal to almost twice the minimum subsistence for an average family of four persons (c. 1000 kg wheat equivalent p.a.). This calculation assumes a normal wheat price of 3 HS per modius.
2. On these topics, see Brunt, , ‘Conscription and Volunteering in the Roman imperial army’, Scripta Classica Israelica 1 (1974), 90–114 Google Scholar; Watson (1969).
3. Luttwak (1976); Jones, G. B. D., ‘Concept and Development in Roman Frontiers’, Bull. Ryl. Libr. 60 (1978), 116-44Google Scholar. Standard accounts in CAH X chh. 9, 12; XI chh. 4, 6.
4. See e.g. Syme, in CAH XI, p. 139 (Syria); Magie (1950), pp. 570-73 (Anatolia); Schönberger, H., ‘The Roman Frontier in Germany: an archaeological survey’,JRS 59 (1969), 144-97Google Scholar.
5. Syme, in CAH XI, p. 340. Challenged by Brunt, in JRS 53 (1963), 170-76Google Scholar (review-discussion). See also Wells, C., The German Policy of Augustus (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar; Mann, J. C., in JRS 69 (1979), 175-83Google Scholar (review of Luttwak (1976)). Luttwak (p. 50) endorses Brunt’s view, which receives support also from the arguments of Themey, J. J., ‘The Map of Agrippa’, Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. 63 (1963), 151-60Google Scholar.
6. See Brunt, ‘Laus Imperii’, in Garnsey/Whittaker (1978), pp. 159-92; Hopkins (1978b), pp. 25 ff.; Harris, W., War and Imperialism in the Roman Republic 327-70 (Oxford, 1979)Google Scholar.
7. On the coins the Parthian king is depicted on his knees. Cf.Hor.Ep. 1.12.27-28; Carm. Saec. 54; Odes 4.15.23. See also Tac. Ann. 2.1 with 13.9; Dio 54.8.
8. Cf. Suet. Aug. 48: membra partisque imperii. See Luttwak (1976), pp. 20 ff.; 111 ff.
9. Zetzel, J. E. G., ‘New light on Gaius Caesar’s Eastern Campaign’, GRBS 11 (1970), 259-66Google Scholar; Schmitthenner, W., ‘Rome and India’, JRS 69 (1979), 90–106 Google Scholar.
10. Luttwak (1976), p. 68.
11. See e.g. Sen. de prov. 4.14 (cf. Tert. de anima 30).
12. Sherwin-White, A. N., Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (Cambridge, 1967)Google Scholar.
13. Dyson, S. L., ‘Native revolts in the Roman Empire’, Historia 20 (1971), 239-74Google Scholar. For the concept of cultural resistance, see Bénabou, M., La résistance africaine à la romanisation (Paris, 1976)Google Scholar, and the review by Whittaker, , JRS 68 (1978), 190-92Google Scholar.
14. Smallwood (1976); on colonies, Levick, B. M., Roman colonies in southern Asia Minor (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar; Brunt (1971); Sherwin-White (1973), pp. 225-63.
15. See Brunt, , ‘Josephus on social conflicts in Roman Judaea’, Klio 59 (1977), 149-53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Romanization of the local ruling classes in the Roman Empire’, in Assimilation et résistance à la culture greco-romaine dans le monde antique, Trav. VI’ Congr. Int. d’Et. Class. Madrid, Sept. 1974 (Paris, 1976), 161-73Google Scholar. Also Sherwin-White (1973), pp. 425-14; Nutton, V., ‘The Beneficial Ideology’, in Garnsey/Whittaker (1978), pp. 209-22Google Scholar.
16. Jones (1940) is still best on most aspects of the city.
17. Dio 51.20.7-8; Tac. Ann. 4.37; Suet. Aug. 52; but see Liebeschuetz (1979), p. 74 n. (Augustus was frequently worshipped alone), and in general on the imperial cult; also Smadja, E., ‘Remarques sur les débuts du culte impérial en afrique sous le règne d’Auguste’, Ann. Litt. Univ. Besançon 237 (1979), 149-70Google Scholar. On the quality of administration, Brunt (1961).
18. On petitions, see Millar (1966); (1977), ch. 7; on imperial propaganda, see Charlesworth, M., ‘The Virtues of a Roman Emperor’, PBA 23 (1937), 3–31 Google Scholar; Wallace-Hadrill, A. M., ‘The Emperor and his Virtues’, Historia 30 (1981), 298–323 Google Scholar.
19. Jones (1974), ch. 8; Hopkins (1980).
20. The emancipation and automatic enfranchisement of select slaves by private individuals seems anomalous, but it too might have been justified with reference to this principle. On citizenship in general, see Sherwin-White (1973).
21. See Sherwin-White (1973), pp. 259-61, with bibliogr.; Saller (1981), ch. 5.
22. Jones (1974), ch. 5; Jones, C. P., Plutarch and Rome (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar; The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, Mass.; 1978).