FIGHTING FOR ROME: THE EMPEROR AS A MILITARY LEADER Olivier J. Hekster* “I and the army are in good health”. The combination of ruler and troops is telling. No phrase could illustrate more clearly the impact of empire (in the form of the emperor) on the armies, or indeed the impact of the armies on the empire. Emperors ruled through military force—even if many tried to disguise this.1 The importance of military support for successful rule is much discussed. The famous statement of the rhetorician Favorinus—who was reproached by friends for conced- ing a point to Hadrian though he himself was right—that the “most learned man is the one who has thirty legions”, is only the most eloquent formulation of a state of affairs that was known to all.2 The impact of soldiers on the existence of empire is obvious, whereas their impact in various regions of the empire is expertly set out in some of the other papers in these proceedings. But what was the impact of empire on the armies? Perhaps most importantly, the emperor arrived on scene. Where before various military leaders had divided the loyalty of troops, or indeed competed for it, from the reign of Augustus onwards the armies, in general, served their emperor—and him alone. The emperor was the military leader par excellence. Legionary commanders owed him their imperium; their victories were his to celebrate, as laid out in the ‘constitutional’ settlements of 28/27 bc, 23 bc and 19 bc.3 * I owe gratitude to the participants of the workshop for their comments, especially to Jon Coulston, Hannah Cotton and Jasper Oorthuys. This paper discusses, from a variant point of view, some of the same themes that have been explored in O.J. Hekster, ‘The Roman army and propaganda’ in P. Erdkamp, ed., A Companion to the Roman Army (Malden MA and Oxford, forthcoming). 1 For the phrase as traditional opening line see: Dio 69.14.3; J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavation of the Theatre at Aphrodisias (Journal of Roman Stud- ies Monographs no. 1) (London 1982), document 6; 12; Cicero, Ad. Familiares 5.21 (Si tu exercitusque valetis, bene est); 5.7.1 (S. T. E. Q. V. B. E.). Cf. J.B. Campbell, The Emperor and the Roman Army. 31 BC –AD 235 (Oxford 1984), 148–156. 2 SHA, Hadrianus 15.13; Philostratus Vitae Sophistarum 489. 3 The literature is, of course, immense. See, on the constitutional position in gen- eral, J.-L. Ferray, ‘À propos des pouvoirs d’Auguste’, Cahiers du centre G. Glotz 12 (2001), Olivier J. Hekster - 9789047430391 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 03:54:08AM via free access 92 olivier j. hekster Throughout the Res Gestae, Augustus emphasises how actions were taken “meo auspicio,” and, indeed, decisions on whether to wage war or not were variously ascribed to imperial whim. Augustus was even described as “lord of war and peace”.4 The fact that he left an account in his will, as Suetonius (Augustus 101.4) writes, of “how many soldiers there were in active service in all parts of [the whole empire, (O.J.H.)]”, implies that nobody else was in possession of those details. That notion is strengthened by a famous passage of Tacitus in which Tiberius ordered a document to be produced and read. This contained a descrip- tion of the resources of the State, of the number of citizens and allies under arms, of the eets, subject kingdoms, provinces, taxes, direct and indirect, necessary expenses and customary bounties (opes publicae contineban- tur, quantum civium sociorumque in armis, quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia, et necessitates ac largitiones). All these details Augustus had written with his own hand . (Ann. 1.11). The central position of the emperor is further emphasised by a decree that Claudius is alleged to have passed which “forbade soldiers to enter the houses of senators to pay their respects”. Soldiers could not be clients of anyone but the princeps himself.5 The person of the emperor was paramount. This centrality was also made clear visually. The imperial image, through portraiture and statues, was highly visible in military camps. The emperor’s imago was present on dona militaria and on manipular signa.6 On the signa, in fact, the reigning emperor’s name was written on the vexillum, thus identifying the face on the imagines, though not only emperors were depicted there—symbols particular to the legions were 101–154. On the settlement of 28/27 bc, J.W. Rich, Cassius Dio, The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53–55.9) (Warminster 1990), 140–143 and J.W. Rich and J.H.C. William, ‘Leges et iura p.R. restituit: a new aureus of Octavian and the settlement of 28–27 bc’, Numismatic Chronicle 159 (1999), 169–213. On the primacy of Augustus in victory-mat- ters: J.W. Rich, ‘Augustus and the spolia opima’, Chiron 26 (1996), 85–127. 4 Strabo 17.3.25 [840]. Cf. Florus, 2.30; Dio 53.22.5 and Dio 53.17.6. For further discussion see J.B. Campbell, Warfare and Society in Imperial Rome, 31 BC –AD 280 (Lon- don/New York 2002), 5. Cf. Campbell 1984, op. cit. (n. 1), 152. 5 Suetonius, Claudius 25.1; C. Thomas, ‘Claudius and the Roman Army reforms’, Historia 53.4 (2004), 424–452, at 428. 6 J. Stäcker, Princeps und Miles: Studien zum Bindungs- und Nahverhältnis von Kaiser und Soldat im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Hildesheim etc. 2003), 153–221, esp. 179–186; 198–205; D. Richter, Das römische Heer auf der Trajanssäule. Propaganda und Realität (Mannheim/Möhnesee 2004), 300–338. Olivier J. Hekster - 9789047430391 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 03:54:08AM via free access fighting for rome 93 also popular.7 In this respect, the creation of the rank of imaginifer is telling. In all branches of the army, individuals constantly carried the image of the emperor, reminding the troops of their ultimate leader. The function was one of pride, as is shown by Priscus of Paphlagonian Hadrianopolis, who Trajan rewarded for his courage by promoting him to the rank of imaginifer.8 They were placed in the rst cohors of a legion, illustrating the importance of carrying round the imperial image.9 The importance of the standards is well known—as is testi ed by the celebration of birthdays of speci c standards or the crowning of standards with roses in the summer.10 Their symbolism could also be employed, as Germanicus did in ad 16 when, ghting the Cherusci, he saw eight eagles in ight and urged his men to march on, since they should “follow the birds of Rome, the special divinities of the legions”. Instantly after their ensuing victory, they proclaimed Tiberius impera- tor.11 Substantial evidence supports the habit of proclaiming an absent emperor imperator through his standards.12 Interesting, also, in this context are the recent observations on the importance of the creation and dissemination of glass phalerae show- ing imperial portraits, in the period from Augustus to Claudius. These reveal, possibly, an experiment in bonding speci cally with centurions and lower ranks.13 The emperors’ faces on coinage were a more obvi- ous way in which imperial images reached the ranks. In the longstand- ing discussion on the propagandistic value of these coins, an exciting contribution is the research of Fleur Kemmers, who has systematically analysed the coin nds of the legionary fortress and Flavian canabae legionis at Nijmegen, the Netherlands. She has shown, rstly, that coins were not chronologically even distributed to the frontier, but that the 7 C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley/Los Angeles 2000), 260, with references; E. Dabrowa, ‘Le uexillum sur les monnaies colo- niales (IIe–IIIe s. après J.-C.)’, Latomus 63 (2004), 394–405. 8 SEG 1993.911. 9 Vegetius, De re militari 2.6–7 (cf. 2.7.3: imaginarii vel imagineri qui imperatoris imagines ferunt); A. von Domaszewski, Die Fahnen im römischen Heere (Wien 1885), 1–80, at 69–70; CIL 3.6178; 3.6180; 13.11868; W. Boppert, Militärische Grabdenkmäler aus Mainz und Umgebung (Mainz 1992), 9; Josephus, Antiquitqtes Judaicae 18.3.1. 10 Pliny, Naturalis Historia 13.23; ILS 9125–9127. See further: V. Hope, ‘The repute and reality of being a Roman emperor’ in J. Huskinson, ed., Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire (London 2000), 70–100 at 80–81; Ando 2000, op. cit. (n. 7), 261–262. Cf. Vegetius, De re militari, 3.8.15. 11 Tacitus, Annales 1.17.2 and 18.2, with Ando 2000, op. cit. (n. 7), 262. 12 Ando 2000, op. cit. (n. 7), 263 with references. 13 Stäcker 2003, op. cit. (n. 6), 153–169, esp. 160–166. Olivier J. Hekster - 9789047430391 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 03:54:08AM via free access 94 olivier j. hekster bulk of coins arrived in speci c ‘peak years’; secondly, that these coins have very homogenous reverse-types (accounting for over 60% of the coins in these peak years); and thirdly, that these reverse types are found almost exclusively in the military settlements along the Rhine, but not in Britain, a substantial part of Belgium, France or the Medi- terranean—with the exception of Rome. Considering that the vast majority of these coins were quadrantes—showing the need for small change within the military—it seems clear that there was a mechanism through which the imperial portrait could be brought to the lower ranks in combination with purposely chosen reverse types.14 In other words, emperors could promote themselves to the armies in regionally diversi- \ ed—though simple—contexts.