\'soft\' eastern soldiers

[starman2012]

So the eastern army was necessarily a different sort of force, attuned to a different threat.

Based on the combat record of the second and third centuries, the "attuning" left something to be desired. :wink:

[starman2012]

and btw it's quite hot there in the east...even modern troops show a certain lack of enthusiasm concerning exercises in hot areas

Sure, and it even made them reluctant to wear armor--they could "bake" in it. Shedding armor is said to have led to Julian's death. IIRC there's evidence that eastern soldiers were poorly equipped. Referring to the time or Nero, or Corbulo, someone wrote they had no helmets. Discipline was another problem Corbulo and Cassius had to address.

[Nathan Ross]

Based on the combat record of the second and third centuries, the "attuning" left something to be desired. :wink:

Well, the third century was hardly a shining epoch for Roman arms on any front mile:

In the second century, however (aside from the note about Cassius and his luxury-loving soldiers, which I'll come to in a moment), the army in the east didn't do too badly. This has often been attributed to 'western' legions being brought east to fight in the place of the useless eastern ones.

However, a while ago I made a list (here) of those legions attested as participating in the Parthian campaign of Trajan - it's interesting that, excepting XXII Primigenia, the only ones definitely stated in inscriptions as being with Trajan in the east are the regular legions of the eastern provinces. He almost certainly did have vexillations from 'western' legions too, but the bulk of the fighting was probably done by the eastern troops.

Earlier, we could compare the disastrous exploits of the Syrian legions against the Jewish rebellion in AD66 with the more effective army that Vespasian put together based on legions recently drawn from the Danube. But one of Vespasian's legions, X Fretensis, had been in the east for a very long time, and showed no lack of martial vigour. And the Syrian III Gallica, sent west against Vitellius, was acclaimed by Antonius Primus for its military fame, and fought well at Cremona. No allegations of oriental flabbiness there either.

Shedding armor is said to have led to Julian's death. IIRC there's evidence that eastern soldiers were poorly equipped. Referring to the time or Nero, or Corbulo, someone wrote they had no helmets.

I think Julian just neglected to put on his armour as he was in a hurry, rather than taking it off because he was hot, but I might be wrong.

As for Corbulo, it's probably worth quoting the source at this point:

Corbulo's main difficulty was... to counteract the lethargy of his troops... For the legions transferred from Syria showed, after the enervation of a long peace, pronounced reluctance to undergo the duties of a Roman camp. It was a well-known fact that his army included veterans who had never served on a picket or a watch, who viewed the rampart and fosse as novel and curious objects, and who owned neither helmets nor breastplates — polished and prosperous warriors, who had served their time in the towns (Tacitus, Annals, XIII, 35)

Sounds fair, although we should be aware that Tacitus is keen to present Corbulo as the epitome of Roman martial virtues, as compared to (say) the hopeless Caesennius Paetus! The quality of the leadership is the key, rather than the quality of the soldiers.

The later allegations of eastern laxity come from the Historia Augusta, and are strikingly similar. First Avidius Cassius:

"I have put Avidius Cassius in command of the Syrian legions" (writes 'the Deified Marcus'), "which are running riot in luxury and conducting themselves with the morals of Daphne; concerning these legions Caesonius Vectilianus has written that he found them all accustomed to bathe in hot water"... "You planned wisely, Sire," (replies the prefect) "when you put Cassius in command of the Syrian legions. Nothing benefits Grecianized soldiers like a man who is somewhat strict. He will certainly do away with all warm baths, and will strike all the flowers from the soldiers' heads and necks and breasts." (HA Avidius Cassius 5.5-10)

Which makes it sounds like the Syrians were up to their old tricks. But note the nature of their offences - having warm baths and wearing flowers on their heads! We might assume, of course, that whoever wrote the Historia was accustomed to bathe in ice water and dine on gruel, but generally speaking hot baths were no novel innovation in the Roman world - bathhouses all along the northern frontier are equipped with hypocausts and steam rooms - although perhaps the audience of metropolitan Rome were not aware of that! But the Historia also mentions Hadrian having banned the soldiers on the Rhine from planting bowers and making grottoes in their camps, so perhaps the northern legionaries were just as florally-inclined as the Syrians after all...

Meanwhile, some time later, Severus Alexander appears:

After his arrival in Antioch the soldiers began to use their leisure in the women's baths and the other pleasures, but when Alexander learned of it he ordered all who did so to be arrested and thrown into chains... "Soldiers of Rome" (he harangues them), "your companions, my comrades and fellow-soldiers, are whoring and drinking and bathing and, indeed, conducting themselves in the manner of the Greeks. Shall I tolerate this longer? Shall I not deliver them over to capital punishment?" (HA Alexander 53.1-7)

Here are the hot baths again - but what else? 'whoring and drinking' - whoever heard of soldiers doing that? It's also worth noting that these are not 'eastern' soldiers, but fresh troops Alexander brought with him from Italy and Illyria. Simply being in Antioch has transformed them into Sybarites!

These incidents may well be true, but as a literary device I think there's a clear link back to Tacitus's description of Corbulo's activities. And, once the rod has been applied and Roman strictness restored, all these troops go on to fight well in battle (albeit many of Alexander's men die in the process - although Herodian describes them resisting valiantly unto death the Persian assault).

What we see here, I believe, apart from the ignorance of the HA author about what soldiers' everyday lives were like, is the image of Antioch (in particular) as the anti-Rome, a place where Roman virtue evaporates in the steam bath and trained soldiers end up lolling about covered in flowers and prostitutes. In other words, it's not the soldiers who are at fault, but the east itself... And there, perhaps, we may see the distorting emphasis of Roman prejudice!

[Sean Manning]

It doesn't make much sense to say that the Macedonians were western in 300 BCE and eastern in 200 BCE...

I think it makes every bit of sense: the Iranians were just as eastern to the Greeks, as the Greeks were to the Romans. History was then made from the west, in two consecutive waves, with each conquest movement starting from the Western periphery of the civilized world, until the center of the ancient world had moved from the Euphrates and Nile over the Aegean to the Tiber, the Far West. It is perfectly legitimate to analyse this change of power balances in east-west terms (as Herodot himself already does in his introduction), because world power flowed along these geopolitical lines with Western powers being the main driving forces in this period.

Macedonia is certainly geographically east of Italy. But Sicily, Carthage, and Massilia were west, and the Italian Greeks were south. Somehow, being west of Italy didn't save them from Roman armies. And of course, the eastern Mediterranean became part of Roman power! After Augustus I think you would have a hard time showing in which regions of the Roman empire Roman power lay (do you mean cultural power? Scholarship? Capital? Technology? Population? War?) The eastern half of the empire was always richer and more learned than the western, it produced both of the religions which were central to the death of the ancient world and the birth of the medieval, and it lasted twice as long.

The other problem that I see is that who doesn't fit into either group is basically arbitrary. The Italian Celts, Gauls, Iberians, Numidians, and Carthaginians don't seem to fit in to your story. Are you saying that only literate societies with towns can be either eastern or western? But that leaves the problem of Carthage and the western Greeks.

Could you explain how anyone could have world power before the 16th or 17th centuries? Rome had no power east of Mesopotamia or south of the Sahara, and China and whichever Indian power was strongest in a given century had no power west of Bactria. A few merchants, muleteers, and sailors could reach from the edge of one empire to the edge of another but their only power was to trade (and occasionally raid or pirate).

[Sean Manning]

This logic does not apply: the Persian empire fell in 651 AD, the Eastern Roman empire in 1453. Obviously, we are depending on the survival of our ancient sources and these are richest from ca. 500 BC to 200 AD or so and in this time period the West mainly made history, while the East chiefly endured it. It stands to reason that the stronger political and military units also claimed for themselves to be the tougher ones.

In your terms, what does it mean to "make history"? It seems to me that every million people has exactly 100 million person-years of history per century. Occasionally, a tiny part of this is recorded, and occasionally, a tiny part of that is of interest to people later.

[starman2012]

Well, the third century was hardly a shining epoch for Roman arms on any front mile:

Yeah, look at Abrittus. But that was due to Decius's blunder; the Roman army should've won. AFAIK from 230-260 CE the Romans won just one battle in the east, at Rhesaina, while suffering two massive defeats and two bloody draws. They won a number in Europe, for example Aemilianus's success in 253, and Naissum c 267, when they really clobbered the Goths.

Earlier, we could compare the disastrous exploits of the Syrian legions against the Jewish rebellion in AD66

From what I've read, in Josephus's book, in this case it was the fault of the commander Cestus, who ordered a retreat even though he was poised to win, and this led to a rout.

with the more effective army that Vespasian put together based on legions recently drawn from the Danube. But one of Vespasian's legions, X Fretensis, had been in the east for a very long time, and showed no lack of martial vigour. And the Syrian III Gallica, sent west against Vitellius, was acclaimed by Antonius Primus for its military fame, and fought well at Cremona. No allegations of oriental flabbiness there either.

Well, this was soon after Corbulo. :-)

I think Julian just neglected to put on his armour as he was in a hurry, rather than taking it off because he was hot, but I might be wrong.

I recall reading somewhere that heat was the reason but don't have the ref...

Which makes it sounds like the Syrians were up to their old tricks. But note the nature of their offences - having warm baths and wearing flowers on their heads!

There had to have been more. The decision to send western soldiers was made after the defeat of Aufidius(?) and his Syrian troops in 162.

[Nathan Ross]

From what I've read, in Josephus's book, in this case it was the fault of the commander Cestus, who ordered a retreat even though he was poised to win, and this led to a rout.

Exactly - poor leadership rather than poor legionaries!

The decision to send western soldiers was made after the defeat of Aufidius(?) and his Syrian troops in 162.

You probably mean the defeat of Sedatius Severianus at Elegeia in AD161. Dio describes it as follows:

Vologaesus, it seems, had begun the war by hemming in on all sides the Roman legion under Severianus that was stationed at Elegeia, a place in Armenia, and then shooting down and destroying the whole force, leaders and all... Lucius, accordingly, went to Antioch and collected a large body of troops; then, keeping the best of the leaders under his personal command, he took up his own headquarters in the city, where he made all the dispositions and assembled the supplies for the war, while he entrusted the armies to Cassius. (Cassius Dio, 71.2)

Lucian tells us more about Severianus, who he calls a 'foolish celt' - apparently he was hoaxed by the charlatan prophet Alexander of Abonoteichus, who told Severianus that he would win an easy victory against the Parthians. Severianus therefore advanced without due care, and lost his legion... Once again, a poor commander was to blame.

Note that Dio has Lucius collecting his troops after arriving in Antioch - in other words, his army was largely composed of the legions already in the east. These troops (after, presumably, a bit of polishing!) go on to win great victories - again, the quality of the commander(s) is key. There were 'western' legions in Lucius' army as well, although only I Minervia is attested in Armenia, plus a collection of 2nd-century tombstones from Zeugma recording men from Danube legions, possibly victims of the plague. The Danube, with its great concentration of legions, was a ready depot of troop reinforcements, and the presence of these soldiers in the east should not necessarily reflect a lack of confidence in the men already there.

[Eleatic Guest]

Could you explain how anyone could have world power before the 16th or 17th centuries?

Yes. The fact that today world is synonymous with earth does not mean that this has always been so. The term and idea of "World" itself has been changing and its meaning expanding throughout history. The "world" has grown with the knowledge about it, through enlarging trade networks, expanding empires, explorations etc.

Another misunderstanding is that "World" has always to mean everything and anything. Rather, it can mean just as often the essential thing. In these both senses, Rome was a world power through and through, quite possibly the largest of all times, because it encompassed the most centres of high culture which existed at its time.

Macedonia is certainly geographically east of Italy. But Sicily, Carthage, and Massilia were west, and the Italian Greeks were south. Somehow, being west of Italy didn't save them from Roman armies. And of course, the eastern Mediterranean became part of Roman power!

I was under the impression that we are talking here about world history. And in world history, the geopolitical terms West and East have never been used in a purely geographical way (as you know, Australia belongs to the West even though it is even east of China and south of nearly everyone). In this sense, Greece and Rome were the West, while the rest, southerly Carthage included, can be subsumed under the East.

After Augustus I think you would have a hard time showing in which regions of the Roman empire Roman power lay (do you mean cultural power? Scholarship? Capital? Technology? Population? War?)

The political power clearly lay in Rome and Italy, later also partly in the Italian colonies which produced emperors from the 2nd century AD onwards. The tax situation also clearly highlight this (see below).

The eastern half of the empire was always richer and more learned than the western, it produced both of the religions which were central to the death of the ancient world and the birth of the medieval, and it lasted twice as long.

Now this is an interesting remark. From what I take from you is that you object against the "soft eastern soldiers" as a too stereotypical or sweeping statement to make. And yet your enumeration does much the same, with the only difference that it supports a 'pro-Eastern' view.

First, you have to exlude Christianity outright from this list. The ironical thing is that this eastern religion became the archtypical sign of Western civilization to this day (something about which Nietzsche, for once Germanic here, complained bitterly) and its defining motive power for most of its existence.

Second, the Holy Roman Empire in the West lasted until 1806, that is four hundred years longer than the Byzantine empire. Why should the Latin Germans lay less claim to Roman continuity than the Byzantine Greeks? Charlemagne's empire and its succession was accepted almost universally as the Roman Empire at least during the medieval millennium. Was not Latin still the lingua franca in the West a thousand years after it had been replaced in the east? Did Rome belong to the Holy Roman or the Byzantine Empire? Did the rex francorum or the basileus move to Rome regularly for ascension?

But most importantly, the notion that the "east was always richer" is, in its generalization, the equivalent of the "west produced tougher soldiers", just with the opposite thrust. And this is exactly what I have come to notice and criticize, namely that generalized statements which put 'the West' somehow in a favourable light, like the assumption that it produced tougher soldiers, immediately come under attack, while similarly sweepingly positive comments referring to the east are still brought forth as truths and facts.

In this case, the east was richer hypothesis has already been refuted by no less than the late Angus Maddison, easily the most important recent quantitative macroeconomist who has dealt with the economic performance past states and empires. Maddison has estimated Roman Europe to be richer than both Roman Asia and Roman Africa if Italy is included, see Income and population distribution: Europe, Asia, Africa The single richest part was the Italian heartland, see Gross domestic product The fact that taxes from the provinces contributed heavily to Italy's exceptional wealth directly supports the view that Italy remained the power center of the empire - you only pay those who wield enough power to oblige you to do so.

[Eleatic Guest]

Something to keep in mind is that the East was considered to be more wealthy, as they had direct access to exotic materials and spices, enough so that Constantine decided (among other reasons) to move the capital to Byzantium (Constantinople).

Considered by whom? Not by the first and, to the best of my knowledge, only quantitative macroeconomical analysis of the relative wealth in the Roman Empire which has ever been done: Income and population distribution: Europe, Asia, Africa . The author comes to the opposite conclusion, namely that Roman Europe was both richer and more populous than the other continental parts.

It rather seems that Constantine's prime motive to relocate the capital to the Bosporus was its unique geostrategical position. From there, he could better watch and guard the two most contested frontiers of the empire, the lower Danube and the Mesopotamian border, than from remote Rome. The fact that Rome later did not maintain its status as capital even within the western half, even though it was in its confines still easily the most important city, also suggests strategic reasons. Milan and Ravenna were chosen over Rome for no other reason than its closeness to the (northern) border, so why should it have been any different for Constantinople earlier?

[starman2012]

You probably mean the defeat of Sedatius Severianus at Elegeia in AD161.

I was aware of that but there was a subsequent action in which the Parthians followed up this victory. Birley's Marcus Aurelius (page 123) mentions the defeat of Attidius Cornelianus by the Parthians, after the defeat of Severianus.

There were 'western' legions in Lucius' army as well, although only I Minervia is attested in Armenia, plus a collection of 2nd-century tombstones from Zeugma recording men from Danube legions, possibly victims of the plague.

Or the crossing operation there, perhaps.

[Nathan Ross]

Birley's Marcus Aurelius (page 123) mentions the defeat of Attidius Cornelianus by the Parthians, after the defeat of Severianus.

Ah, ok. Interestingly, though, I think this particular incident might demonstrate the operation of a literary trope on our understanding of history... mile:

The source for Cornelianus's defeat is the Historia Augusta:

fuit eo tempore etiam Parthicum bellum, quod Vologaesus paratum sub Pio Marci et Veri tempore indixit, fugato Attidio Corneliano, qui Syriam tunc administrabat. (HA, Marcus, 8.6)

The narrative gives this as the start of the Parthian war - but Dio tells us that it was Severianus, governor of Cappadocia, who was defeated with his army - could the HA author have confused the governors of Cappadocia and Syria?

Allowing the benefit of the doubt, though, we're told that Cornelianus was routed or ran away - 'fugato' could mean either, I think. He was repaced soon afterwards, but he had been in position for a long period, so this might have been a routine change-over.

Anyway, Birley interprets this as follows:

Attidius Cornelianus had been defeated and put to flight in an engagement with Parthian forces. (Birley, Marcus Aurelius p/123)

So the indefinite 'fugato' has become a full-scale military defeat. Still. not improbable perhaps.

However, when we move to the Wikipedia page on the Parthian wars, we find this:

Attidius Cornelianus' army had been defeated in battle against the Parthians, and retreated in disarray.

So not only do we have a definite battle, but it's Cornelianus's army, rather than the governor himself, who 'retreated in disarray'.

You can see the shift in emphasis here - from Cornelianus himself fleeing in the original source, to his army fleeing ('in disarray'!) in the modern popular interpretation. And of course we believe it must have been his army that fled because... they were easterners, and that's what easterners do!

However, when you consider the state of the Syrian legions as portrayed in the HA - luxurious, relaxed - they do not appear to be an army who have recently fled in disarray from an advancing enemy...

I wouldn't be surprised if many of our notions about the battlefield ineptitude of eastern soldiers stem from just this sort of circular logic.

[Epictetus]

Lucian mentions this earlier defeat, too.

For example, the oracle given to Severianus in regard to his invasion of Armenia was one of the autophones. Alexander encouraged him to the invasion by saying:

“Under your charging spear shall fall Armenians and Parthi;
Then you shall fare to Rome and the glorious waters of Tiber
Wearing upon your brow the chaplet studded with sunbeams.”

Then when that silly Celt, being convinced, made the invasion and ended by getting himself and his army cut to bits by Osroes, Alexander expunged this oracle from his records and inserted another in its place

“Better for you that your forces against Armenia march not,
Lest some man, like a woman bedight, despatch from his bowstring
Grim death, cutting you off from life and enjoyment of sunlight.”

Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet, 27

Here Lucian blames the defeat upon the general's superstitious belief in a false oracle. I suppose writers can interpret events any way that fits their theme.

[starman2012]

You can see the shift in emphasis here - from Cornelianus himself fleeing in the original source, to his army fleeing ('in disarray'!) in the modern popular interpretation. And of course we believe it must have been his army that fled because... they were easterners, and that's what easterners do!

One thing strikes me as suspicious. If the army was routed, why wasn't Antioch sacked, as it was in the 3rd century?

[Nathan Ross]

Lucian mentions this earlier defeat, too.

Thanks David. I mentioned Lucian in my earlier post, but didn't provide the quote! mile:

One thing strikes me as suspicious. If the army was routed, why wasn't Antioch sacked, as it was in the 3rd century?

Absolutely. We should be critical of the Historia Augusta anyway, but when it claims that the war started with the 'flight' of the governor of Syria, and two rather more reputable sources (Dio and Lucian) say that it was the governor of Cappadocia who was defeated, we should have cause for more suspicion! The Parthian move into Armenia was part of the ongoing political tug-of-war over that country; if the Parthians had followed it by a concerted push into Syria it's unlikely they would have retreated again after a victory. This single reference in the HA has, I think, caused quite a bit of head-scratching by anyone trying to reconstruct the course of events at the time...

[starman2012]

Absolutely. We should be critical of the Historia Augusta anyway, but when it claims that the war started with the 'flight' of the governor of Syria, and two rather more reputable sources (Dio and Lucian) say that it was the governor of Cappadocia who was defeated, we should have cause for more suspicion! The Parthian move into Armenia was part of the ongoing political tug-of-war over that country; if the Parthians had followed it by a concerted push into Syria it's unlikely they would have retreated again after a victory. This single reference in the HA has, I think, caused quite a bit of head-scratching by anyone trying to reconstruct the course of events at the time...

Also, when Priscus arrived, he advanced into Armenia in 163. AFAIK he didn't go to Syria; apparently there was no problem there.