TheRoman army (Latin:exercitus Romanus) servedancient Rome and theRoman people, enduring through theRoman Kingdom (753–509 BC), theRoman Republic (509–27 BC), and theRoman Empire (27 BC–AD 1453), including theWestern Roman Empire (collapsedAD 476/480) and theEastern Roman Empire (collapsedAD 1453). It is thus a term that broadly spans approximately 2,206 years, during which the force underwent numerous permutations insize,composition,organisation,equipment andtactics, while conserving a core of lasting traditions.^[1][2][3]

Exercitus Romanus
Vexillum andaquila displayingSPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus)
Active	753 BC–AD 1453 (2,206 years)
Country	Roman Kingdom Roman Republic Roman Empire Western Roman Empire Eastern Roman Empire
Size	Legions: 28–50
Headquarters	Aquincum Bonn Lauriacum Isca Augusta Alexandria Singara Regensburg Novae Busra
Motto(s)	'Gloria Exercitus' (lit. 'Glory of the Army')
Engagements	See:list of Roman external wars and battles andlist of Roman civil wars and revolts
Commanders
Commander-in-chief	Emperor (de facto; 27 BC–AD 1453) Consul (de jure; 509 BC–AD 887) King (753–509 BC)
Notable commanders	Marcus Furius Camillus Scipio Africanus Gaius Marius Julius Caesar Germanicus Flavius Stilicho Flavius Belisarius

Untilc. 550 BC, there was no "national" Roman army, but a series of clan-based war-bands which only coalesced into a united force in periods of serious external threat. Around 550 BC, during the period conventionally known as the rule of kingServius Tullius, it appears that a universal levy of eligible adult male citizens was instituted. This development apparently coincided with the introduction of heavy armour for most of the infantry. Although originally low in numbers, the Roman infantry was extremely effective and developed some influential battle strategies.

The early Roman army was based on a compulsory levy from adult male citizens which was held at the start of each campaigning season, in those years that war was declared. There were no standing or professional forces. During theregal period (to c. 500 BC), the standard levy was probably of 9,000 men, consisting of 6,000 heavily armed infantry (probably Greek-stylehoplites), plus 2,400 light-armed infantry (rorarii, later calledvelites) and 600 light cavalry (equites celeres). When the kings were replaced by two annually electedpraetores in c. 500 BC, the standard levy remained of the same size, but was now divided equally between the praetors, each commanding onelegion of 4,500 men.

It is likely that the hoplite element was deployed in a Greek-stylephalanx formation in largeset-piece battles. However, these were relatively rare, with most fighting consisting of small-scale border-raids and skirmishing. In these, the Romans would fight in their basic tactical unit, thecenturia of 100 men. In addition, separate clan-based forces remained in existence untilc. 450 BC at least, although they would operate under the Praetors' authority, at least nominally.

In 493 BC, shortly after the establishment of theRoman Republic, Rome concluded a perpetual treaty of military alliance (theFoedus Cassianum), with the combined otherLatin city-states. The treaty, probably motivated by the need for the Latins to deploy a united defence against incursions by neighbouring hill-tribes, provided for each party to provide an equal force for campaigns under unified command. It remained in force until 358 BC.

The central feature of theRoman army of the mid-Republic, or the Polybian army, was the manipular organization of its battle-line. Instead of a single, large mass (thephalanx) as in theEarly Roman army, the Romans now drew up in three lines consisting of small units (maniples) of 120 men, arrayed in chessboard fashion, giving much greater tactical strength and flexibility. This structure was probably introduced in c. 300 BC during theSamnite Wars. Also probably dating from this period was the regular accompaniment of each legion by a non-citizen formation of roughly equal size, theala, recruited from Rome's Italian allies, orsocii. The latter were approximately 150 autonomous states which were bound by a treaty of perpetual military alliance with Rome. Their sole obligation was to supply to the Roman army, on demand, a number of fully equipped troops up to a specified maximum each year.

TheSecond Punic War (218–201 BC) saw the addition of a third element to the existing dual Roman/Italian structure: non-Italian mercenaries with specialist skills lacking in the legions andalae:Numidian light cavalry,Cretan archers, andBalearic slingers. From this time, these units always accompanied Roman armies.

The Republican army of this period, like its earlier forebear, did not maintain standing or professional military forces, but levied them, by compulsory conscription, as required for each campaigning season and disbanded thereafter (although formations could be kept in being over winter during major wars). The standard levy was doubled during theSamnite Wars to four legions (two per consul), for a total of c. 18,000 Roman troops and four alliedalae of similar size. Service in the legions was limited to property-owning Roman citizens, normally those known asiuniores (age 16–46). The army's senior officers, including its commanders-in-chief, the Roman consuls, were all elected annually at the People's Assembly. Onlyequites (members of the Roman knightly order) were eligible to serve as senior officers.Iuniores of the highest social classes (equites and the First Class of commoners) provided the legion's cavalry, the other classes the legionary infantry. Theproletarii (those assessed at under 400drachmae wealth) were ineligible for legionary service and were assigned to the fleets as oarsmen. Elders, vagrants, freedmen, slaves and convicts were excluded from the military levy, save in emergencies.

The legionary cavalry also changed, probably around 300 BC onwards from the light, unarmoured horse of the early army to a heavy force with metal armour (bronzecuirasses and, later, chain-mail shirts). Contrary to a long-held view, the cavalry of the mid-Republic was a highly effective force that generally prevailed against strong enemy cavalry forces (both Gallic and Greek) until it was decisively beaten by the Carthaginian generalHannibal's horsemen during the Second Punic War. This was due to Hannibal's greater operational flexibility owing to his Numidian light cavalry.

The Polybian army's operations during its existence can be divided into three broad phases. (1) The struggle for hegemony over Italy, especially against the Samnite League (338–264 BC); (2) the struggle withCarthage for hegemony in the western Mediterranean Sea (264–201 BC); and (3) the struggle against theHellenistic monarchies for control of the eastern Mediterranean (201–91 BC). During the earlier phase, the normal size of the levy (including allies) was in the region of 40,000 men (two consular armies of c. 20,000 men each).

During the latter phase, with lengthy wars of conquest followed by permanent military occupation of overseas provinces, the character of the army necessarily changed from a temporary force based entirely on short-term conscription to a standing army in which the conscripts, whose service was in this period limited by law to six consecutive years, were complemented by large numbers of volunteers who were willing to serve for much longer periods. Many of the volunteers were drawn from the poorest social class, which until the Second Punic War had been excluded from service in the legions by the minimum property requirement: during that war, extreme manpower needs had forced the army to ignore the requirement, and this practice continued thereafter.Maniples were gradually phased out as the main tactical unit, and replaced by the largercohorts used in the alliedalae, a process probably complete by the time the generalMarius assumed command in 107 BC. (The so-called "Marian reforms" of the army hypothesised by some scholars are today seen by other scholars as having evolved earlier and more gradually.)

In the period after the defeat of Carthage in 201 BC, the army was campaigning exclusively outside Italy, resulting in its men being away from their home plots of land for many years at a stretch. They were assuaged by the large amounts of booty that they shared after victories in the rich eastern theatre. But in Italy, the ever-increasing concentration of public lands in the hands of big landowners, and the consequent displacement of the soldiers' families, led to great unrest and demands for land redistribution. This was successfully achieved, but resulted in the disaffection of Rome's Italian allies, who as non-citizens were excluded from the redistribution. This led to the mass revolt of thesocii and theSocial War (91-88 BC). The result was the grant of Roman citizenship to all Italians and the end of the Polybian army's dual structure: thealae were abolished and thesocii recruited into the legions.

Under the founder–emperorAugustus (ruled 30 BC – 14 AD), thelegions, c. 5,000-strong all-heavy infantry formations recruited fromRoman citizens only, were transformed from a mixed conscript and volunteer corps serving an average of 10 years, to all-volunteer units of long-term professionals serving a standard 25-year term (conscription was only decreed in emergencies). In the later 1st century, the size of a legion's First Cohort was doubled, increasing legionary personnel to c. 5,500.

Alongside the legions, Augustus established theauxilia, a regular corps of similar numbers to the legions, recruited from theperegrini (non-citizen inhabitants of the empire – about 90% of the empire's population in the 1st century). As well as comprising large numbers of extra heavy infantry equipped in a similar manner to legionaries, the auxilia provided virtually all the army's cavalry (heavy and light), light infantry, archers and otherspecialists. The auxilia were organised in c. 500-strong units calledcohortes (all-infantry),alae (all-cavalry) andcohortes equitatae (infantry with a cavalry contingent attached). Around 80 AD, a minority of auxiliary regiments were doubled in size. Until about 68 AD, the auxilia were recruited by a mix of conscription and voluntary enlistment. After that time, the auxilia became largely a volunteer corps, with conscription resorted to only in emergencies. Auxiliaries were required to serve a minimum of 25 years, although many served for longer periods. On completion of their minimum term, auxiliaries were awarded Roman citizenship, which carried important legal, fiscal and social advantages. Alongside the regular forces, the army of thePrincipate employed allied native units (callednumeri) from outside the empire on a mercenary basis. These were led by their own aristocrats and equipped in traditional fashion. Numbers fluctuated according to circumstances and are largely unknown.

As all-citizen formations, and symbolic guarantors of the dominance of the Italian hegemony,^{[citation needed]} legions enjoyed greater social prestige than the auxilia. This was reflected in better pay and benefits. In addition, legionaries were equipped with more expensive and protective armour than auxiliaries. However, in 212, the emperorCaracalla granted Roman citizenship to all the empire's inhabitants. At this point, the distinction between legions and auxilia became moot, the latter becoming all-citizen units also. The change was reflected in the disappearance, during the 3rd century, of legionaries' special equipment, and the progressive break-up of legions into cohort-sized units like the auxilia.

By the end of Augustus' reign, the imperial army numbered some 250,000 men, equally split between legionaries and auxiliaries (25 legions and c. 250 auxiliary regiments). The numbers grew to a peak of about 450,000 by 211 (33 legions and c. 400 auxiliary regiments). By then, auxiliaries outnumbered legionaries substantially. From the peak, numbers probably underwent a steep decline by 270 due to plague and losses during multiple major barbarian invasions. Numbers were restored to their early 2nd-century level of c. 400,000 (but probably not to their 211 peak) underDiocletian (r. 284–305). After the empire's borders became settled (on theRhine-Danube line in Europe) by 68, virtually all military units (except thePraetorian Guard) were stationed on or near the borders, in roughly 17 of the 42provinces of the empire in the reign ofHadrian (r. 117–138).

The military chain of command was relatively uniform across the Empire. In each province, the deployed legions'legati (legion commanders, who also controlled the auxiliary regiments attached to their legion) reported to thelegatus Augusti pro praetore (provincial governor), who also headed the civil administration. The governor in turn reported directly to the emperor in Rome. There was noarmy general staff in Rome, but the leadingpraefectus praetorio (commander of thePraetorian Guard) often acted as the emperor's de facto military chief-of-staff.

Legionary rankers were relatively well-paid, compared to contemporary common labourers. Compared with their subsistence-level peasant families, they enjoyed considerable disposable income, enhanced by periodic cash bonuses on special occasions such as the accession of a new emperor. In addition, on completion of their term of service, they were given a generous discharge bonus equivalent to 13 years' salary. Auxiliaries were paid much less in the early 1st century, but by 100 AD, the differential had virtually disappeared. Similarly, in the earlier period, auxiliaries appear not to have received cash and discharge bonuses, but probably did so from Hadrian onwards. Junior officers (principales), the equivalent ofnon-commissioned officers in modern armies, could expect to earn up to twice basic pay. Legionarycenturions, the equivalent of mid-level commissioned officers, were organised in an elaborate hierarchy. Usually risen from the ranks, they commanded the legion's tactical sub-units ofcenturiae (c. 80 men) andcohorts (c. 480 men). They were paid several multiples of basic pay. The most senior centurion, theprimus pilus, was elevated toequestrian rank upon completion of his single-year term of office. The senior officers of the army, thelegati legionis (legion commanders),tribuni militum (legion staff officers) and thepraefecti (commanders of auxiliary regiments) were all of at least equestrian rank. In the 1st and early 2nd centuries, they were mainly Italian aristocrats performing the military component of theircursus honorum (conventional career path). Later, provincial career officers became predominant. Senior officers were paid very high salaries, multiples of at least 50 times basic.

A typical Roman army during this period consisted of five to six legions. One legion was made up of ten cohorts. The first cohort had fivecenturia each of 160 soldiers. In the second through tenth cohorts there were sixcenturia of 80 men each. These do not include archers, cavalry or officers.

Soldiers spent only a fraction of their lives on campaign. Most of their time was spent on routine military duties such as training, patrolling, and maintenance of equipment, etc. Soldiers also played an important role outside the military sphere. They performed the function of a provincial governor's police force. As a large, disciplined and skilled force of fit men, they played a crucial role in the construction of a province's Roman military and civil infrastructure: in addition to constructing forts and fortified defences such asHadrian's Wall, they built roads, bridges, ports, public buildings, entire new cities (Roman colonies), and also engaged in large-scale forest clearance and marsh drainage to expand the province's available arable land.

Soldiers, mostly drawn from polytheistic societies, enjoyed wide freedom of worship in the polytheistic Roman system. They revered their own native deities, Roman deities and the local deities of the provinces in which they served. Only a few religions were banned by the Roman authorities, as being incompatible with the official Roman religion and/or politically subversive, notablyDruidism andChristianity. The laterPrincipate saw the rise in popularity among the military of Easternmystery cults, generally centred on one deity, and involving secret rituals divulged only to initiates. By far the most popular in the army wasMithraism, an apparentlysyncretist religion which mainly originated inAsia Minor.

TheLate Roman army is the term used to denote the military forces of theRoman Empire from the accession of emperorDiocletian in 284 until the Empire's definitive division into Eastern and Western halves in 395. A few decades afterwards, the Western army disintegrated as theWestern Empire collapsed. TheEast Roman army, on the other hand, continued intact and essentially unchanged until its reorganization bythemes and transformation into theByzantine army in the 7th century. The termlate Roman army is often used to include the East Roman army.

The army of thePrincipate underwent a significant transformation, as a result of thechaotic 3rd century. Unlike the Principate army, the army of the 4th century was heavily dependent onconscription and its soldiers were more poorly remunerated than in the 2nd century.Barbarians from outside the empire probably supplied a much larger proportion of the late army's recruits than in the army of the 1st and 2nd centuries.

The size of the 4th-century army is controversial. More dated scholars (e.g.A. H. M. Jones, writing in the 1960s) estimated the late army as much larger than the Principate army, half the size again or even as much as twice the size. With the benefit of archaeological discoveries of recent decades, many contemporary historians view the late army as no larger than its predecessor: under Diocletian c. 390,000 (the same as under Hadrian almost two centuries earlier) and underConstantine no greater, and probably somewhat smaller, than the Principate peak of c. 440,000. The main change in structure was the establishment of large armies that accompanied the emperors (comitatus praesentales) and were generally based away from the frontiers. Their primary function was to deterusurpations. The legions were split up into smaller units comparable in size to theauxiliary regiments of the Principate. In parallel, legionary armour and equipment were abandoned in favour of auxiliary equipment. Infantry adopted the more protective equipment of the Principate cavalry.

The role of cavalry in the late army does not appear to have been enhanced as compared with the army of the Principate. The evidence is that cavalry was much the same proportion of overall army numbers as in the 2nd century and that its tactical role and prestige remained similar. Indeed, the cavalry acquired a reputation for incompetence and cowardice for their role in three major battles in mid-4th century. In contrast, the infantry retained its traditional reputation for excellence.

The 3rd and 4th centuries saw the upgrading of many existing border forts to make them more defensible, as well as the construction of new forts with much higher defensive specifications. The interpretation of this trend has fuelled an ongoing debate whether the army adopted adefence-in-depth strategy or continued the same posture of "forward defence" as in the early Principate. Many elements of the late army's defence posture were similar to those associated with forward defence, such as a looser forward location of forts, frequent cross-border operations, and external buffer-zones of allied barbarian tribes. Whatever the defence strategy, it was apparently less successful in preventing barbarian incursions than in the 1st and 2nd centuries. This may have been due to heavier barbarian pressure, and/or to the practice of keeping large armies of the best troops in the interior, depriving the border forces of sufficient support.

TheKomnenian period marked a rebirth of theByzantine army. At the beginning of theKomnenian period in 1081, the Byzantine Empire had been reduced to the smallest territorial extent. Surrounded by enemies, and financially ruined by a long period of civil war, the empire's prospects looked grim.

At the beginning of the Komnenian period, the Byzantine army was reduced to a shadow of its former self: during the 11th century, decades of peace and neglect had reduced the oldthematic forces, and theBattle of Manzikert in 1071 had destroyed the professionaltagmata, the core of the Byzantine army. At Manzikert and later atDyrrhachium, units tracing their lineage for centuries back toLate Roman army were wiped out, and the subsequent loss ofAsia Minor deprived the Empire of its main recruiting ground. In the Balkans, at the same time, the Empire was exposed to invasions by theNormanKingdom of Sicily, and byPecheneg raids across theDanube.

The Byzantine army's nadir was reached in 1091, whenAlexios I Komnenos could manage to field only 500 soldiers from the Empire's professional forces. These formed the nucleus of the army, with the addition of the armed retainers of Alexios' relatives and the nobles enrolled in the army and the substantial aid of a large force of alliedCumans, which won theBattle of Levounion against thePechenegs (Petcheneks or Patzinaks).^[4] Yet, through a combination of skill, determination and years of campaigning, Alexios, John and Manuel Komnenos managed to restore the power of the Byzantine Empire by constructing a new army from scratch. This process should not, however, at least in its earlier phases, be seen as a planned exercise in military restructuring. In particular, Alexios I was often reduced to reacting to events rather than controlling them; the changes he made to the Byzantine army were largely done out of immediate necessity and were pragmatic in nature.

The new force had a core of units which were both professional and disciplined. It contained formidable guards units such as theVarangians, theAthanatoi, a unit of heavy cavalry stationed inConstantinople, theVardariotai and theArchontopouloi, recruited by Alexios from the sons of dead Byzantine officers, foreign mercenary regiments, and also units of professional soldiers recruited from the provinces. These provincial troops includedkataphraktoi cavalry from Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace, and various other provincial forces such asTrebizondarchers from the Black Sea coast ofAnatolia. Alongside troops raised and paid for directly by the state the Komnenian army included the armed followers of members of the wider imperial family and its extensive connections. In this can be seen the beginnings of the feudalisation of the Byzantine military. The granting ofpronoia holdings, where land, or more accurately rights to revenue from land, was held in return for military obligations, was beginning to become a notable element in the military infrastructure towards the end of the Komnenian period, though it became much more important subsequently.

In 1097, the Byzantine army numbered around 70,000 men altogether.^[5] By 1180 and the death of Manuel Komnenos, whose frequent campaigns had been on a grand scale, the army was probably considerably larger. During the reign of Alexios I, the field army numbered around 20,000 men which was increased to about 30,000 men in John II's reign.^[6] By the end of Manuel I's reign the Byzantine field army had risen to 40,000 men.

ThePalaiologan army refers to the military forces of theByzantine Empire from the late 13th century to its final collapse in the mid 15th century, under theHouse of the Palaiologoi. The army was a direct continuation of the forces of the Nicaean army, which itself was a fractured component of the formidableKomnenian army. Under the first Palaiologan emperor, Michael VIII, the army's role took an increasingly offensive role whilst the naval forces of the Empire, weakened since the days of Andronikos I Komnenos, were boosted to include thousands of skilled sailors and some 80 ships. Due to the lack of land to support the army, the Empire required the use of large numbers of mercenaries.

After Andronikos II took to the throne, the army fell apart and the Byzantines suffered regular defeats at the hands of their eastern opponents, although they would continue to enjoy success against the crusader territories in Greece. By c. 1350, following adestructive civil war and the outbreak of theBlack Death, the Empire was no longer capable of raising troops and the supplies to maintain them. The Empire came to rely upon troops provided by Serbs, Bulgarians, Venetians, Latins, Genoans and Ottoman Turks to fight the civil wars that lasted for the greater part of the 14th century, with the latter foe being the most successful in establishing a foothold in Thrace. The Ottomans swiftly expanded through the Balkans and cut off Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, from the surrounding land. The last decisive battle was fought by the Palaiologan army in 1453, when Constantinople was besieged andfell on 29 May. The last isolated remnants of the Byzantine state were conquered by 1461.

This section contains the summaries of the detailed linked articles on the historical phases above. Readers seeking presentations of the Roman army by theme, rather than by chronological phase, should consult these articles:

• Ross Cowan,Roman Legionary 109-58 BC: The Age of Marius, Sulla and Pompey the Great
• Ross Cowan,Roman Legionary AD 69-161
• Ross Cowan,Roman Legionary AD 284-337: The Age of Diocletian and Constantine
• Diocletian and the Roman Army
• Life of Roman legionary
• Roman Warriors: The Myth of the Military Machine