The military institution in Rome has developed and significantly evolved over time through history. However, it has maintained its foundation role, which is to protect the boundaries of Rome from external threats and find ways to expand the territories of Rome. This institution did not just happen today, but it began centuries ago. The military has undergone multiple evolution stages to become a stable political institution in the history of Rome today. Additionally, the role played by the military in Rome today has been crucial to the generation of sound political foundations. The military in Rome has proved its significance from the earliest of ages in Rome. It continues to be an integral part of the majority of the political welfare and institutions. According to Livius, the domain of the Rome military has transformed from an individualistic institution to a stable professional body by the use of technological advancements in war equipment, tools, weapons towards preserving the common good of Rome.
Evolving
According to Livius, the military has evolved over various stages and mechanisms in Rome. The first establishment of Rome was in the early years Before Christ. Most of the soldiers who fought the wars for Rome were raised by nomen latinum and socci. Livius explained the early introduction of the soldiers from the Hannibalic war. In earlier years, the military or the army was merely a unit comprised of allied people, such as the Marci and the Paeligni. That were also Latin colonies that were joined together, such as Placentia. There were also rewards for the allies that exhibited bravery during battles (Livius 25, 14). The earliest stationing of allies in the war was during 204 B.C. when latini nominis were sent to Bruttium (Livius 29, 19).
As aforementioned, Titus described the early military as being primarily independent based on one man. For instance, he explains more than once an individual, Praefectus socii, who chose to go to a battle all by himself, where he lost it and got killed in the process (Livius 31, 2). There were also cases of allied cavalry in Titus’s descriptions of the war. He describes examples of battles that applied the cavalry, such as Cannae and Tribia. Consecutively, the Romans also used tactical units into action, such as the maniples. Even though he fails to describe the specificity of the military and the armies, Livius describes the various formations of the battles carried out in Rome. The positioning of the units in the right and the left wings did not begin today, but it was also evident ages ago during the battle formations by the Romans.
Battles in the past also usually applied a specific number of people to participate in the war or the army legions. The Hannibalic war of 207B.C was among the battles fought by the numbered legions (Livius 25, 26, 27). In addition, the Spain wars also involved the deployment of armies and were opposed by the second legion (Livius 34, 14). In contrast, the second is in conjunction with the third legions (Livius 44, 4).
Due to lack of development during the early centuries, the Roman battles were characterized by the increased number of casualties, who were, in most cases, part of the legions. The major problem with the early military was the lack of military standards and wagons before its evolution. In Livius’s battle of the Ligurians, over four thousand soldiers belonging to the Romans were killed, resulting in the loss of nineteen standards of the allies (Livius 39, 7).
Forces
The backing up of the military by the nation was one of the major forces that led to the evolution of the army in Rome today. As the Roman Empire evolved into the second century, so did the soldiers backed up by the state. This is because the state could then see the allies’ unification and the efforts put together by the armies (Livius 27). The Roman military deployed auxiliary cohorts to war who worked in conjunction with the heavy infantry of the allies and the maniple. The second-century also saw the incorporation of archers as well as slingers. According to Livius, this period additionally integrated Rome’s elites into the cultural and political areas, including some families. The cavalry was served by the people who had great wealth among the allies.
Greek influence and presence were another dynamics behind the evolution of the military in Rome. The Etruscan society was the first significant affluence of the Greeks. It was situated next to the Roman, and therefore the influence of the Greeks transcended from them to the Romans. The Greeks were mainly advanced in their tactics of war and weapons, which were much developed compared to what the Romans were using at the time. The Greek’s armors were also to be admired. In reference to Livius’s analysis, he noted the greatness of Etruria through which the power base grew into Italy’s land (Livius 1.25). The trade between Italy and Etruria was the force behind the exchanges of weaponry between them. Levy also highlights the interaction of the Romans and the Etruscans, with some of them even bringing the influence of their powers to Rome, such as Lucius. The latter was later appointed King by the senate, bringing about the troops’ influence further (Livius 1, 35).
The influence of Tullius Servius also contributed significantly to the evolution of the military and its changes in Rome. He was of Etruscan origin, and he instituted significant reforms in the military. One was the division of the population in Rome into groups that had a unique military role to play (Livius 1, 43). Every group was structurally formed with its advanced weapons such as helmets and shields, thereby creating a unique structure and strength to the military.
The Development
The military’s development was not at all consistent. This is because it underwent various setbacks that caused a delay in its growth. One of the inconsistencies was that the military would go for long periods under stagnation. This meant that there were periods when it was basically inactive. There were times when the military could not build their encampments due to the stagnation which had helped them, especially during the war with the Samnites (Livius 8, 3). The equipment, as well as the tactics of the military during this time, became dissolutioned.
An additional problem in the development of the military in Italy was the poor administration of the army. This mostly led to insufficient arrangements of food and supply to the military. It further created gaps in the Rome military due to insufficient mutinies, as referenced by Livy (Livius 28, 24).
The bureaucracy of the military in Rome also channeled its delay in further enhancement and development. Most of this was attributed to Augustus’s reign as he influenced the administration of the army. Therefore, most of the military interventions during that period were a sought of intervention in the interest of Augustus (Livy 1, 44).
The invasion of the Roman Empire by various tribes such as the Barbarians created a setback in the development and nurturing of the military in Rome. The Barbarian tribes of Germany primarily dealt a massive blow on the military during their attacks which would later cause the empire’s decline. The constant wars weakened the army in Rome as they were overstretched and lacked the necessary and sufficient resources to fight the enemies back. The military had no power to restore the empire (Livius 6, 2).
Even with all the drawbacks to its development and growth, the military in present-day Rome is still a strategic and powerful army with a strong foundation basis.
The Common Good
The military of the Romans worked towards the common good preservation by defending and protecting Rome for centuries against attacks. The defense allowed Rome to grow and develop significantly to the point it became one of the biggest empires to dominate in the world then. Due to the strength and training of the military, they were able to conquer territories for the expansion of Rome.
However, at some point, the military worked several parts of the republic, which led to the eruption of the civil war. Led by Caesar, the military men plotted against the nation, which went against the republic’s interests in Rome during that period.
Works Cited
Livius, Titus (1896). The History of Rome, Vol. 1. Peter A. Mesier et al., 10.
write