The Roman Military System

The ancient Roman Empire began when Romulus founded the city of Rome in approximately 753 B.C. and lasted until about 1453 A.D. when the German invasion occurred. Throughout this era, specifically 250 BC until 200 AD, historians including Theodor Mommsen and Sara Phang have debated and interpreted several aspects of how and why the Roman military evolved and the military system itself. These authors used several ancient Roman historians, including Livy and Publius, public records, war accounts and many other sources to investigate and theorize different conclusions about why the Roman military was so powerful and how they were able to conquer the vast majority of the European Continent and the known world. In his book, The History of Rome,

Brand argues that the Roman military system was successful due to the fact that there was an internal hierarchy, as well as laws and rules that were in place. Based on laws, and ancient Roman historians and leaders, like Polybius, Brand solely argues the Roman army’s power was based off the political leadership and strict organization. He analyzes the oath each soldier was required to take, no matter their rank, and how even the leader of each legion “...swore ‘to be obedient and to execute the orders of his officer to the best of his ability’” (Brand 47). Brand discusses the legions and how each was broken down into four lines of specific troops, while having a set hierarchy and specific code to follow, but only touches on the idea that success of these legions was due to their sheer size. He asserts that discipline, used by the higher ranks such as the commanding general, was strong and a major motivating factor for each soldier. He agrees with Theodor Mommsen and the idea that politics was the main factor to why the Roman army was victorious. Brand shortsightedly focuses solely on the political aspects of why the Roman armies were successful, arguing the leaders were responsible for the empire’s

She contends that “...discipline restrained such behavior and legitimized and stabilized the imperial power” and that both emperors and high military officials benefitted as well because they “...gained prestige by imposing discipline…” (Phang i). Phang directly references consul Scipio from 134 BC and his use of discipline to turn around the numerous defeats in Spain. She agrees with C. E. Brand on the idea that politics changed the military in a powerhouse, arguing that if it wasn’t for leaders enforcing discipline and reward, the soldiers wouldn’t have won the amount of battles that they did. She clarifies that discipline was not just punishment, but instead, meant to make the soldiers more obedient and loyal to their cause and the purpose. She argues that the discipline of the soldiers reflected the power of the state they represented and, similar to Brand, asserts that the military was influenced by the state and should therefore represent the state’s