Introduction
In Ancient Rome, when everyone aspired to be emperor, brave troops were a need. The result was devastating conflict, loss of life, and mourning. The everyday lives of Roman soldiers were defined by their military training, discipline, and duty to the state (Mclaughlin 12), all of which contributed significantly to the development of the Roman Empire. Historians and non-specialists alike continue to hold the Roman Army in high esteem. Many modern people are surprised to learn about the Romans’ technical prowess from more than two thousand years ago (Erdkamp and Blackwell, n.d.). Many of the roads they constructed are still in use, many of the baths they constructed are still in existence, and a large portion of the archaeology we use today is based on ancient Roman and Greek ideas. The Roman Army, being the most feared fighting force of the day, is also fascinating. This thesis will use literary, artistic, and architectural evidence to investigate what a day in the life of a Roman soldier was like. This article will examine the typical day in the life of a Roman soldier, including what a soldier did, where they went, whom they spoke to, and what was expected of them.
Regular Activities
The day of a Roman soldier was highly regimented, and their activities varied depending on the time of day, the season, and the region. Physical training would begin first thing in the morning for the troops and consist of running, leaping, and wrestling (Mclaughlin 25). Following breakfast, they would receive lectures on various aspects of military training, such as formation marching, weapons practice, and formation shooting. They would participate in military drills in the afternoon, such as simulated battles, besieging tactics, and target practice. After supper, the troops would have free time to participate in leisure activities like board games, gambling, and storytelling (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, 41). The day would close with dinner.
In addition, Roman soldiers had a wide variety of vocations and levels across the empire. Some of the troops served in the military as camp clerks, editors, clerk assistants, and even military musicians. Others worked in other administrative roles. They continued to uphold their commitment to the empire by carrying out these duties every day of their life. According to John’s research (n.d.), the Aquifer is the one who carries the legionary eagle and stands at the front of each legionary.
In contrast, the Architect is an engineer or artillery constructor. The Roman Army was typically organized into legions comprising around 4,500 soldiers. These legions were then split into cohorts, each consisting of approximately 600 men, and finally into centurions, each consisting of approximately 85-100 men, and was led by a centurion who wore a unique helmet (Mclaughlin 26-27). Every every day of their life, the troops were responsible for garrisoning these areas and keeping watch over the empire. They had to do it as part of their responsibility, and they took turns performing.
Where Roman Soldiers mostly Spent Their Time
The location of a Roman soldier would vary according to the task and responsibilities they were given. An ordinary soldiers would spend most of their time at what is known as a castrum, which is a military base. The castrum w
as an orderly and well-fortified camp built to shelter and protect the troops. It had several barracks, storage facilities, and administrative buildings, including the Principia, which was the location of the commanding officer’s quarters. According to Polybius’s The Histories, 6.24, the soldiers’ barracks were organized into contubernia, essential groups of eight men who shared a room and essentials like a bed, a table, and a place to cook.
Soldiers in the Roman Army were expected to labor nonstop, as though they were getting ready to engage in combat at any time. He was required to walk 20 miles a day while carrying all of his armor and equipment, as well as swim and even cross rivers in boats, construct bridges, and make his way inside forts while capturing, destroying, and breaking the walls (Mclaughlin 18). Not only that but in addition to this, he had to set up a camp and do several other strenuous exercises. Moreover, you had to do this every day! According to Stein, Perrin, and others (n.d.), a Roman soldier was exceedingly obedient and always followed all of the instructions given to him. If he disobeyed, he risked receiving severe actions and penalties.
The people that the Roman Soldiers interacted With
A Roman soldier’s interactions with different individuals varied according to their status and the tasks they were assigned. When a soldier was in the lower ranks, most of their interactions were with other troops, their commanders, and support workers like chefs, medics, and blacksmiths (Mario 674). As soldiers rose through the ranks, they were given more opportunities to speak with civilians, such as merchants, prisoners of war, and dignitaries from the community. In some circumstances, troops might take part in diplomatic missions. These missions may include carrying letters or negotiating peace deals with other nations (Caesar, The Gallic War, 4.3).
Expectations for their Behaviors, Particular Norms, or Ideologies Associated with their Role, and how those Behaviors and Ideologies Played out in Reality
Life was difficult for Roman troops serving on the ground, and enormous demands were placed upon them. Daily marches may span roughly 20 miles, mistakes were punished with brutality, and despite the success of the Roman Army, there was always the possibility of being killed or injured (Mclaughlin 11). It was required of Roman soldiers to conduct themselves with the highest discipline, loyalty, and courage at all times. They were taught to carry out commands without question, persevere in the face of adversity and deprivation, and prioritize the state’s welfare above their own individual concerns. Several cultural norms and ideas were connected to the position of a soldier, one of which was the idea of virtue, which emphasized manliness, bravery, and honor. It was also expected of the soldiers to maintain the military oath, which was a solemn vow to protect the state against all external and internal adversaries (Livy, The History of Rome, 2.34).
However, since soldiers were still human beings, they were susceptible to vices like avarice, cowardice, and corruption; therefore, these expectations and conventions did not always play out, in reality, how they were supposed to. Certain troops were more likely to quit their posts, revolt, or participate in a mutiny when they believed they were being mistreated or devalued. In other instances, soldiers would also participate in illegal actions like stealing, raping, and murdering. The officials in charge of the military would have to harshly punish them for keeping the troops in line (Tacitus, The Annals, 1.42).
On the other hand, the Roman Military Service drew its power from the cultural norms and expectations of the time. The presentation of troops in traditional military history as if they were only extensions of their commander’s will is always a limitation of traditional military history, as is the projection of current expectations onto ancient actors. Even the finest comparative military history has this limitation (Mclaughlin 15). Because of this, a significant commitment to social and cultural history was essential in forming the Roman soldier’s perspective on the world. An overemphasized culture of discipline existed within the military, and the adoption of a wide variety of cultural practices characterized it. These customs encouraged obedience, enabled the elites who controlled the Army to maintain social control over its members and were influenced by various competing ideologies.
The impact of traditional role elements on their 21st-century counterparts
Aspects of the Roman soldier’s function have undoubtedly informed contemporary concepts of military service. Discipline and rule-following are essential tenets of today’s military ethos and curriculum. There is still a strong focus in today’s militaries on physical preparedness and combat readiness. The once-mighty Roman military had fallen into decadence like the rest of Roman civilization. A reduced permanent army was bolstered by auxiliary troops formed of barbarian mercenaries (Duncan 2.13), a stark contrast to the highly disciplined and well-trained Roman regulars that made up the Army throughout the early empire.
However, the unique cultural and social standards connected to the duty of the Roman soldier may be less prominent in today’s society. While qualities like courage and independence are still highly prized in the armed forces, the Roman military’s particular expression of these traits may not be as applicable today.
Additionally, there are certain things that current forces may learn from the Roman military. The modern military may learn a great deal from the late Roman Army’s example. Substantial retirement benefits are essential for any professional military force. Retaining a sizable core of highly educated personnel crucial to contemporary conflict depends on generous post-service benefits. It is counterproductive to look for less expensive military solutions by ignoring the conventional channels of voluntary recruiting. Finally, the many peoples of each Roman legion were united by their shared experience of serving their country for a decisive national goal. The empire’s demise was hastened by the decision to abandon this unifying, if costly, structure in favor of a more significant number of low-cost conscripts and barbarians. When looking for ways to reduce the cost of defense without sacrificing effectiveness, modern armies would be well to learn from the mistakes of the late Roman Army. Ultimately, a country receives the level of national security it provides for or refuses to provide for.
Offering more significant rewards solely to those who participated in combat is likely to damage the force’s cohesiveness and promote unnecessary class warfare within the ranks, whereas offering lesser benefits to a broader proportion of the active duty force would have the opposite effect. The Romans experimented with similar tactics by paying barbarians less than strictly Roman warriors, but the result was a decrease in unit cohesion and morale. Furthermore, the services focus excessively on cultural variety, highlighting the distinctions between the fighting forces rather than uniting them via a shared experience of American culture. The Roman Army of the high empire was remarkably multicultural, with soldiers hailing from as far away as the British Isles and as close as the Syrian desert (Mclaughlin 22). It allowed many different religions and beliefs to coexist within Roman society without having to draw unnecessary attention to their differences. This structure, which worked so well for many years, protected the legions from involvement in nationalistic warfare.
Conclusion
A Roman soldier’s day might have consisted of anything from guard duties to combat training to drills. They would have spent time in various settings, from military bases to civilian neighborhoods to war zones. Primarily, they would have spoken with other troops and their commanders, but they may also have spoken to civilians and POWs. Expectations for conduct included courage, independence, and compliance with military procedures and cultural standards. Though these standards may have less weight in today’s armies, the heritage of the Roman military and its principles still impact military cultures worldwide.
Works Cited
Literary Evidence:
Annals of Tacitus, translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, MacMillan and Co., 1873.
Livy. The History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt. Penguin Classics, 2002.
Mclaughlin, Jonathan. The Transformation of the Roman Auxiliary Soldier in Thought and Practice.
Paul Erdkamp, Wiley-Blackwell. A Companion to Roman Army, 2010.
Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Translated by Robert Graves. Penguin Classics, 2007.
William Duncan, War Commentaries of Julius Caesar, Dodo Press, 2011.
Artistic/Material Evidence:
Bennett, Julian. “Two Roman Soldiers in Istanbul: Praetorian Guardsmen or Centurions?.” Anatolica 46 (2020): 235-247.
Kent, John. Roman Imperial Coinage. Volume X. Vol. 10. Spink Books, 2018.
Stein, Perrin, et al. Jacques Louis David: Radical Draftsman. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2022.
Architectural Evidence:
Torelli, Mario. “Landscape as Itinerary: The Story of Trajan’s Dacian Wars on Trajan’s Column.” Digital Draw Connections: Representing Complexity and Contradiction in Landscape. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. 669–682.
write