This book would appear from its title to be about the soldiers who fought for Rome. While its author is interested in soldiers, the Republic to which it refers is at once ancient Rome and modern America. This book is a mixture of history and polemic aimed at American readers. B.'s calls upon Americans to consider their Roman roots in order to understand their present is familiar; however, his choice of the Roman army to make that point is unusual. Readers interested in Rome and its military will find little that is useful or original in this book. Scholars of the ways in which commentators use America's classical past for political commentary on the present may find B.'s discussion topical.
The preface functions like an introduction – providing B.'s justification, thesis and goals as well as the organisation of the book. B. seeks to demonstrate that modern Americans must reconnect with and understand the Roman roots of republicanism, civic virtues and civic militarism instilled in America's foundation. The citizen-soldier of the Roman Republic is the chosen vehicle to demonstrate this thesis. B. seeks to provide a military history of the Republic in which he focuses on ‘the relationship between the republican spirit and the citizen-soldier’, in particular the civic motivations for soldiers’ willingness to fight and die (p. xii). In this goal he falls short.
A prologue chapter presents a selective review of the Roman republican roots of America's foundation. It is long on the founders’ republican motivations and short on historiography, an expected omission given the intended audience. This chapter provides a general ideological and political background for what follows and may be new information for some general readers. However, its coverage is highly selective, ignoring everyone who was not adult, male, white and a full citizen, even though many people in the excluded categories contributed to the foundation of America.
Background material continues in two chapters that comprise Part 1. The first of these focuses on citizen-soldiers, soldier-citizens and farmers. B., a veteran, brings his experience in the US Army to bear, defining the soldier types by their professionalism – citizen-soldiers were citizens first, who looked forward to returning to their non-military occupations regardless of whether they volunteered or were drafted, while soldier-citizens were/are professional soldiers. He asserts that the Roman Republic and early America had citizen-soldiers, while Sparta, the Roman Empire and modern America had/have soldier-citizens. These distinctions are part of his criticism of the modern American way of war in which soldiers and civilians have lost touch with each other and what he sees as the foundational ideologies of America.
There follows an idealistic section titled ‘Farmers, the Chosen People of God’, on the perceived importance of small, free farmers to the Roman Republic and early America. B. is over-reliant on rhetorical and idealistic works by Roman and American authors (e.g. Varro, Cato and Thomas Jefferson), ignoring the authors’ contemporary political and social contexts that coloured their writing.
Since a general audience would not necessarily be familiar with the Roman Republic and republicanism, B. draws heavily in Chapter 2 on Polybius, Cicero, Plato, Aristotle, Varro, Cato and John Adams to provide readers with an introduction to the necessary ideologies, features and evolution of the Roman Republic. The philosophy receives better treatment than the history. The discussion remains straightforward, selective, idealistic and unencumbered by the impact of historiography. For example, B. maintains, ‘The Roman empire was arduously cultivated by hard work and the slow expansion of Roman farmers and the Roman farming ideal’ (p. 53). No doubt Varro would have agreed with this statement, but it omits the reality of all the non-citizens (many of whom were free allies) who contributed to expansion and did not enjoy the benefits of the res publica. There is a brief treatment of sources in which B. dismisses material culture and epigraphic sources as uncertain in their interpretation while downplaying the problems in interpreting the literary sources. B.'s Roman Republic ends, perhaps not surprisingly, with the death of Cicero in 43 bce.
The rest of the book attempts to provide a military history of the Roman Republic. Rather than reviewing each chapter, a brief summary of the topics covered in each chapter is here followed by a general review of the entire section. Part 2 (Chapters 3 and 4) covers the period from the Etruscan monarchy to the Pyrrhic war. Most of this part focuses on the evolution of army organisation in the context of an evolving Republic. B. arranges the next two Parts (Chapters 5–9) chronologically, using a battle in each chapter to demonstrate the superiority of Roman civic militarism and the changing nature of citizen-soldiers’ service. Chapters 5–7 carry the discussion from the Third Samnite War in the early third century to the capture of New Carthage during the Second Punic War to the Battle of Pydna in 167 bce. Chapters 8 and 9 cover respectively the Battle of Mutina and the Battle of Philippi. Throughout these chapters the themes of civic virtues, civic militarism and the importance of small farmers remain important. Because B. is building a case in favour of his version of republican virtues and needs battle narratives to appeal to the intended audience, the selection of these events allows him to focus attention on the specific battle narratives that he thinks best support his thesis.
The treatment of Roman military history is highly selective, superficial and ignores the actual history as opposed to an idealistic treatment of parts of it. The discussion is selective in the way in which B. excludes or glosses over entire groups, like the allies who did not enjoy the benefits of citizenship even though B. repeatedly characterises all soldiers as Roman citizen-soldiers. His treatments of commanders are idealistic and ahistorical in places. For example, B. often reports the moods, drives and thought processes of commanders and soldiers as if he could peer into their long dead heads.
Superficiality is a constant problem, but is especially on display in Chapter 8. B. passes over Marius’ reforms swiftly and criticises Marius’ choice to accept volunteers, even though B. had earlier praised the same action by Scipio Africanus. Sulla is little more than someone who broke with precedents and then gave Pompey a nickname. Caesar ‘was nothing short of a monster’ (p. 226). Part of the superficiality is a failure to consider that, like many militaries, the Roman military did not exist separate from the political actions of its leaders. The lack of attention to political contexts is especially surprising in a book that emphasises republicanism and Roman republican roots.
Idealism skews B.'s approach to historical method. His concentration on battles and leaders is out of step with modern military history. The battlefield maps, for example, are obsolete fiction and a disservice to the complexity of the actual battles. The history in this book is oversimplified. B.'s selection of battles and commanders to discuss is driven by a need to force Roman history to conform to his thesis rather than formulating a thesis that conforms to the history. B. remains true to his thesis throughout and simply ignores or glosses over facts and events that do not fit.
In the epilogue B. returns to the underlying reason for writing. This section maintains some of the shortcomings of previous sections. Its treatment of Augustus’ military reforms and the military of the Principate is superficial. B.'s discussion of the Republic remains idealistic and polemical. In considering how Rome fought its wars, B. returns to a theme he brought up in Chapter 1 – criticism of the modern American way of war. Not the tactics, technology or the soldiers themselves, but the way in which Americans authorise conflict in which they take no personal stake. How would the American way of war be different, he wonders, if citizens had to fight in them. These are valid and necessary topics of discussion and debate. This book will no doubt appeal to some of its intended audience, but it is unfortunate that B. chose to present this topic in such a flawed treatment.
