Today, November the 11th, is Remembrance Day in the British Commonwealth, and Veterans Day in the United States.
This is a sacred day, for on this day we remember and honour the men and women in uniform, past and present, who risked, and are risking, their lives to keep us safe in this world.
It doesn’t matter what side of the political divide you find yourself, or whether you ‘agree’ with a specific conflict. Our courageous soldiers go where they are sent. They do the work most people shun and are terrified of. They tread pathways beyond the darkness so that we are not all dragged into that darkness.
Today we offer a heartfelt ‘Thank You’ and our deepest gratitude to our troops.
Thank you for all that you have done, and all that you are doing for the rest of us, for our safety and for our collective freedom.
Lest We Forget…
*Something to think about..
Because of the dread task our troops face, the lives they lead, and the things they suffer for all our benefit, we [the Team at Eagles and Dragons Publishing] firmly believe that all members of the military, and their families, should be permanently except from taxation, that they should have FREE post-secondary education (no matter the college or university), and that they should have proper pensions after their service.
It is the least our governments can do for them after all that they have endured.
A heartfelt Thank You to all of our men and women in uniform, past and present, for risking and sacrificing their lives to keep us all safe in this world.
Is this statement of Aristotle’s correct? Perhaps it was in ancient Greece when the Persians were invading the lands of the Hellenes, murdering and enslaving them. It might even have been true in the smaller world of the Greek homeland when one neighbouring city-state overstepped and boundaries for the relationship needed to be re-established.
This is a very simplistic way of looking at it. War was part of life in the ancient world and a good city-state, and its citizens, were prepared for war if the need should arise.
Perhaps the better question to ask ourselves in regard to Aristotle’s words above is this:
Is this still true today?
Do we still make war that we may live in peace? Or do we make war for other reasons? And who is the ‘We’ in all of this?
As November 11th approaches and we rightly honour the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, past and present, on Remembrance Day and Veterans Day, questions of war are front of mind for many of us.
I’ve been thinking about writing a post like this for some time now. Let’s face it, it’s not an easy topic, and many are divided. This is more of a thought process post in which we will take a brief look at what ancient democracies and republics did when it came to the decision to go to war, and whether we can learn anything from them today.
Sadly, I can’t recall a time when there wasn’t some terrible conflict choking the screens of our televisions, or drowning the feeds of our social media platforms. Tragically,it seems that our world is at a terrible tipping point.
It seems like ‘we’ are addicted to war.
Again, I ask, who is the ‘We’ in that statement? Here is another statement from Aristotle for us to consider as we wade through the weedy terrain of this topic:
We are what we repeatedly do.
Aristotle
Ancient Greek Hoplites in Battle
The history of ancient democracies is marked by a fascinating interplay between citizen participation and the conduct of foreign affairs, particularly in matters of war. These early democratic societies grappled with the ethical and practical complexities of deciding whether to go to war against their enemies. The concept of “war by the people, for the people” was not only a foundational principle but also a challenging moral and strategic puzzle.
Let’s explore briefly the decision-making processes and the moral considerations that ancient democratic civilizations such as Athens and the Roman Republic confronted when deciding whether to wage war.
View of the Acropolis of Athens from the Pnyx, site of the Athenian Assembly
The Athenian Democracy
The Athenian democracy, which emerged in the 5th century BCE, is often hailed as a pioneering model of citizen participation in governance. At the heart of Athenian democracy was the Ekklesia, an assembly of free male citizens who could propose and vote on laws, including decisions related to war and peace. Thucydides, the ancient historian, captures the essence of Athenian democracy in his account of the Peloponnesian War:
Pericles… declared that a man who took no interest in public affairs was not a quiet, unoffending citizen, but a useless one. In one word, he conceived that they were born to serve the state, not only in matters great and high, but in the least and lowest also.
(Thucydides – History of the Peloponnesian War)
It is interesting to note that in ancient Greece, the word idiota referred to someone who refrained from participation in public life, who chose not to take part in the decisions that affected the democracy itself.
In ancient Athens, male citizens were expected serve the state, not only by serving the requiredminimum of two years in the military, but also by voting and putting forth an opinion on matters great and small, including the decision to go to war.
Are citizens’ voices and opinions held in such high regard today?
Let’s leave that particular question hanging for the moment.
Artist impression of a meeting of the Athenian Assembly on the Pnyx
In the Ekklesia of ancient Athens, the moral dilemma of whether to undertake a certain action or policy, including whether or not to go to war, was expected to be strongly considered by the citizens of the assembly, the citizens of Athens.
However, this empowerment of citizens in the decision-making process came with its own dilemma. Athens faced a delicate balance between the pursuit of its interests and the ethical considerations of war. As Thucydides continues:
…a reason for attacking a neighbour; they thought it equitable to keep what they held and weak to give up anything, and it was more disgraceful to lose anything once possessed than not to have gained at all.
(Thucydides – History of the Peloponnesian War)
This statement will, of course, sting when it comes to the conflicts currently happening in parts of the world, as it should. However, when it comes to imperialistic tendencies, the moral dilemma behind this statement stings all the more.
If a country has what it has always had, if it has not been attacked, should it still go to war?
There is was definite tension between self-interest and moral principles in Athenian democracy. The Ekklesia had the power to decide on war, but it was not always clear whether the decision was driven by strategic necessity or imperial ambition.
Most citizens of the Greek city-states agreed that the war against Persia had to be waged. It was about survival, about ‘freedom or death’, a phrase that is ingrained in the Greek psyche to this day. Could the same be said of the Peloponnesian conflict?
Pericles’ funeral oration for Athenian dead of Peloponnesian War.
Wars have dire consequences on both sides of the conflict, so why do ‘we’ seem to be so willing to engage in them?
In ancient Athens, the people had a voice, or at least they were supposed to. Here are some specific examples of confrontations in ancient Athens in which the decision to go to war was hotly debated by the citizenry:
The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE) – Athens vs. Sparta
The outbreak of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta was met with significant debate in the Athenian Ekklesia. The statesman Pericles argued in favour of a defensive strategy, urging the Athenians to retreat behind the city’s walls and rely on their navy which was the strongest in the world at the time. However, there was public opposition to this strategy, with some advocating for a more aggressive stance.
Ultimately, the Athenian assembly decided to follow Pericles’ strategy, leading to the construction of the Long Walls that connected Athens to its port, Piraeus. Still, at various points during the Peloponnesian War, there were instances of public opposition to the conflict, particularly in Athens. The war’s prolonged nature and the suffering of the Athenian population led to widespread dissatisfaction.
The war, marked by several debates and shifts in strategies, eventually ended with the defeat of Athens in 404 BCE.
The Sicilian Expedition (415-413 BCE) – Athens vs. Syracuse
The Sicilian Expedition was a controversial military campaign proposed by the Athenian general Alcibiades not only against Sparta, but this time also against Corinth and Syracuse. Many Athenians were initially opposed to it due to its immense cost and risks.
Again, there was much debate in the Ekklesia of Athens with the young, arrogant Alcibiades pushing for war. In opposition to him, the commander, Nicias, debated that Athens should not go to war in Sicily, that they would be leaving powerful enemies at their backs as the war still raged in Greece. Nicias also tried to warn the assembly that Alcibiades and his proponents wanted to lead Athens into war for their own ends.
Despite public opposition and concerns, the Athenian assembly eventually approved the expedition. Unfortunately for Nicias, and for Athens, two hundred ships and thousands of soldiers were sent to Sicily, and they were all lost. Athens had spread itself too thinly and its, (and Alcibiades’) ‘imperial hubris’ were the death stroke for Athens.
The Sicilian Expedition ended in a catastrophic failure, with the Athenian fleet and forces suffering heavy losses, which significantly weakened Athens in the Peloponnesian War.
The Peloponnesian War and the Sicilian Expedition both had severe, negative impacts on both Athens and Sparta. Athens experienced a devastating plague that decimated its population, and the conflict drained its treasury. In Sparta, the prolonged war created economic hardships, and the agricultural land was ravaged. Ultimately, the war resulted in the eventual defeat and decline of Athens, but left both city-states significantly weakened.
In these prolonged conflicts one could say that both sides ‘lost’, for the winner and the loser both paid heavy prices.
Was the Athenian citizenry swayed by false promises and flowery rhetoric? Probably.
Painting depicting Cicero speaking out in the Senate
The Roman Republic
In the Roman Republic, a different form of democratic governance emerged. Power was divided between the Senate, an aristocratic body of elders, and various popular assemblies in which Roman citizens could vote on key matters. The Roman Republic’s decision to go to war was often a complex interplay between the Senate and the Popular Assemblies.
This form of government is more akin to our modern democracies than that of ancient Athens where citizens had the opportunity to speak for themselves in the assembly and to vote directly on decisions.
When it came to debates in the Roman Senate about decisions to go to war, few could argue so eloquently as the Roman statesman and philosopher, Cicero. He grappled with the ethical dimensions of war in his writings. In his work De Officiis (On Duties), he discusses the moral principles that should guide leaders in deciding whether to wage war:
[W]e must consider not only the honesty and justice of going to war, but also the ways and means of conducting it… Above all, nothing is more disgraceful than to be eager to make war, but without taking proper precautions.
(Marcus Tullius Cicero, On Duties)
Cicero’s emphasis on the necessity of just cause and proportionality in warfare reflects the moral concerns that were at the heart of Roman deliberations. He wasn’t against war, but strongly emphasized careful consideration of what it meant, the cost to the Republic and its citizens, as well as proper preparation if the decision to go to war was taken.
In the history of Rome, there were numerous wars and conflicts that were hotly debated and pushed for by various factions in the Senate and Popular Assemblies. Here are a couple of examples…
The Roman Invasion of Carthage (149-146 BCE) – Roman Republic vs. Carthage
When it came to the third Punic War which followed the defeat of Hannibal in the second, the Roman Senate was divided over whether to fight Carthage once more. Prominent senators like Cato the Elder argued passionately for the destruction of Carthage, citing it as a long-term threat to Rome. He was so eager for the destruction of Carthage that it is said that he ended nearly every speech in the Senate with Carthago delenda est – “Carthage must be destroyed”.
However, others were more cautious, as Carthage posed no immediate danger, having been thoroughly trounced at the Battle of Zama.
Despite opposition to the war – for the Roman people had suffered greatly in the previous one with Hannibal arriving at the gates of Rome itself – the Roman Senate ultimately declared war on Carthage and the Third Punic War began. The conflict ended with the complete destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE, symbolized by the razing of the city, the apparent salting of the surrounding earth, and the enslavement of its population. Rome may have won that particular war, but at what cost to the Roman people?
The Roman Civil Wars (1st Century BCE) – Various Factions
The final years of the Roman Republic were marked by intense political and military conflicts among various factions, including the Populares and the Optimates. Key figures like Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Cicero were involved in debates over the course of action. Cicero, for instance, consistently advocated for the preservation of the Republic through peaceful means. He loved the Republic, and did not want to see it destroyed.
The aim of a ship’s captain is a successful voyage; a doctor’s, health; a general’s, victory. So the aim of our ideal statesman is the citizens’ happy life–that is, a life secure in wealth, rich in resources, abundant in renown, and honourable in its moral character. That is the task which I wish him to accomplish–the greatest and best that any man can have.
(Marcus Tullius Cicero, On the Republic / On the Laws)
Unfortunately for the Roman people, the prolonged civil war that came out of the debates brought about political instability, economic hardships, and military conscription, which took a toll on the Roman populace. The social fabric of Rome was torn asunder, and the eventual victory of Julius Caesar marked the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire, with centralized imperial rule replacing the traditional republican system.
Cicero had been justified in his concern about the erosion of the Republic’s institutions.
In both the examples of the Third Punic War and the Civil Wars, the disregard for public opposition to war by political leaders had serious repercussions. These instances serve as cautionary tales, highlighting the consequences of leaders pursuing their agendas despite significant public resistance, ultimately leading to significant upheaval and societal change.
Civil War
This is a vastly complicated topic, and we have but scratched the surface of the armour here. We’ve only looked at a few examples out of many in the history of Greece and Rome.
Comparing the Athenian and Roman models of democracy reveals striking differences in their approaches to war. Athens embraced a more direct form of democracy, where the citizens themselves decided on matters of war. This often led to rapid and aggressive military actions. In contrast, the Roman Republic, with its complex system of checks and balances, tended to approach war with more caution, as reflected in Cicero’s moral reflections. Still, were the wishes of Rome’s citizens carefully considered? Was Cicero facing a tidal wave of opposition, or were the greedy motives of a few what brought war to the Roman people once again?
Both Athens and Rome grappled with moral considerations when deciding whether to wage war. Pericles’ assertion of civic duty in Athens and Cicero’s ethical principles in Rome demonstrate that moral discourse was intrinsic to these ancient democracies. However, both models were not infallible. One could say that the Athenian democratic and Roman Republican models allowed for debate, but were also prone to more impulsive decisions driven by self-interest.
Artist impression of the Second Macedonian War
Ancient democracies navigated the intricate path of deciding whether to wage war against their enemies. These societies, though distinct in their democratic structures, were united in their commitment to deliberating the ethical dimensions of warfare.
The tension between self-interest and moral principles was an enduring challenge, reflecting the enduring complexity of democratic decision-making.
As we reflect on these historical examples, we are reminded that the dilemma of whether to go to war or not remains a pressing concern in contemporary democracies. The lessons of the past offer valuable insights into the delicate balance between the will of the people and the moral and strategic imperatives that underpin the decision to wage war. Ancient democracies can serve as a source of inspiration and contemplation as we grapple with the challenges of our own time.
Modern politicians would do well to mind what history has taught us.
Public opposition and debates were common, reflecting the diversity of opinions within these societies. The outcomes varied, often with significant consequences for the states involved.
Certainly, there were instances in ancient Greece and Rome where the people were strongly opposed to going to war, but politicians ignored their concerns and pursued military campaigns regardless. These wars often had negative impacts on the populations involved, and this is not relegated to the distant past, but has indeed played out in the modern era.
Vietnam War
Here are some examples:
The Vietnam War (1955-1975) – This conflict had devastating consequences for both the United States and Vietnam. It resulted in a high death toll, significant economic expenditure, and a deeply divided American society. The war also led to environmental damage due to the widespread use of defoliants like Agent Orange.
In the case of the Vietnam War, American politicians faced widespread public opposition, with anti-war protests, draft dodging, and disillusionment among the youth. The negative impact of the war, both in terms of lives lost and economic burden, weighed heavily on subsequent administrations. The war’s unpopularity played a role in the electoral defeat of President Lyndon B. Johnson and influenced the 1972 presidential election.
The Iraq War (2003-2011) – This war had profound negative consequences. It destabilized the region, led to the loss of thousands of lives, and incurred substantial financial costs. The war’s aftermath saw the rise of extremist groups and sectarian violence, contributing to regional instability that persists to this day.
The Iraq War faced significant public opposition, and politicians who supported it faced criticism. The war’s costs, both in terms of lives and resources, contributed to declining public support and played a role in the 2008 presidential election, where the Iraq War was a key issue.
The Afghanistan War (2001-2021) – This was America’s longest conflict, and it had significant negative consequences. It resulted in a protracted and costly military engagement, with a high human toll. Despite initial objectives to combat terrorism, Afghanistan remained politically unstable, and the Taliban regained control following the U.S. withdrawal in 2021.
The Afghanistan War eroded public support over time and, one could say, the global good will toward the U.S. after 9/11 was ultimately squandered by the drawn out conflict. Politicians who advocated for continued military involvement often faced scrutiny, and the war’s unpopularity became a factor in subsequent elections.
American troops in Afghanistan
Again, these are just a few examples of wars, but it is worth asking: Are they worth the human, financial, and societal costs?
Perhaps modern politicians should listen more closely to public opinion, and take a more ‘Ciceronian’ approach to war when assessing the costs and consequences of going to war? There should be a robust debate. Should any one person make the decision to go to war? I would say there is too much at stake to allow that.
Citizens of modern democracies are led to believe that politicians encourage open and robust debates on matters of war and conflict. Do they?
Public discourse and debate can help weigh the pros and cons, ensuring that decisions are well-informed and scrutinized. Does that happen?
Do you think that diplomacy and conflict resolution should be prioritized whenever possible?
Do you believe that war should be a last resort, and politicians should exhaust all diplomatic avenues before considering military action?
Again, we come back to one of the questions asked at the outset: Are citizens’ voices and opinions on these matters held in such high regard today as they were, say, in ancient Athens?
In ancient democracies, the people had avenues to express their wishes in matters of war, but do we truly have that today? Do the people’s wishes truly matter? Are our politicians simply taking the ‘easy’ way out?
It is more difficult to organize a peace than to win a war; but the fruits of victorywill be lost if the peace is not organized.
Aristotle
The Voice of the People
I realize that our modern western democracies are enormous, covering continents in some instances. It is impossible for all citizens to gather in one place to debate, discuss, and vote as the Athenians did on the Pnyx in ancient Athens, or as the Roman people did on the Field of Mars or in the Forum Romanum.
Today, the people have their elected representatives speaking for them, be it in the House of Commons, or the in the Senate. The decisions taken in these bodies affect everyone.
The question now is, do you, as a citizen feel like your representatives in the Commons or Senate hear you and consider your own wishes and needs? When it comes to the deeply serious moral dilemma of whether or not our democracies should go to war, are the citizenry being listened to?
What would the world be like if all of our politicians were as thoughtful as Cicero, for example, when it came to matters of war and its consequences?
In some of the examples above, we’ve seen what happens when the citizenry is ignored. So today, we need to ask ourselves that if the will of the majority, of the people, is not being taken into account when it comes to the decisions that impact our way of life, our world, our very lives, is change required? Is the system of government broken? Have the elected representatives in our democracies lost sight of the true nature and purpose of those same democracies?
History seems to be repeating itself, and not in a good way.
Is it time for the citizenry to reassert its voice? Should there be virtual referendums when it comes to the decision of going to war?
I, like many of you, have many questions and doubts. But I do know this: Democracy may not be a perfect or fool-proof system, but it is (or at least it should be) at its core, more honest and fair.
Maybe we just need more Ciceros.
Thank you for reading.
This Remembrance Day and Veterans Day, Eagles and Dragons Publishing is, as always, grateful to our men and women in uniform who risk their lives to keep us all safe at home and abroad. We are proud to have made contributions to the causes of the following charities: Royal Canadian Legion Poppy Campaign, War Child Canada, and Wounded Warriors Canada.
Welcome back to the blog. I hope that you are all keeping well and safe during the continuing pandemic, wherever you are.
Today is Remembrance Day in Canada, the UK, and Australia, and Veteran’s Day in the United States, so I thought that it would be fitting to post something something on a military theme in honour of our men and women in service.
This week on the blog, we’re going to be taking a brief look at the foundation and organization of the Republican Roman legion.
Many readers will already be familiar with the organization of the Imperial Roman Legion, but perhaps not the formation of Rome’s early army? How did a little village on the Tiber develop into such a dominant military force in the Mediterranean world? What did the early Roman army look like, and how was it organized?
Servius Tullius, sixth king of Rome (580-530 B.C.)
In the early days, of course, Rome was ruled by kings. From 753 – 509 B.C., beginning with Romulus and ending with Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, Rome’s army was the king’s army. The king had direct command of the military.
However, as Rome conquered more neighbours in the Italian peninsula, its army grew bigger, and so a hierarchy of command was needed.
This early Roman army under the king, was made up of approximately three thousand men from the three tribes of Rome: the Ramnenses (named after Romulus himself), the Titiensies (named after Titus Tatius), and the Lucerenses (name origin unknown). The men from these tribes formed one, big army, a citizen army.
At this time, the army was commanded by a tribunus, or ‘tribal officer’, beneath the king. Other than this, however, little else is known about the chain of command in the army before the fourth century B.C.
What we do know is that Servius Tullius (580-530 B.C.), the sixth king of Rome, divided the people into classes with his constitution, and these divisions had both political and military purposes. There were financial groupings or ‘centuries’ that meant men of military age were divided according to their ability to provide their own arms and equipment for military service.
Equites were the richest, and the rest of the population, which formed the infantry, were divided into five classes with descending degrees of weapons and armour.
Below these five classes were the capite censi, or landless men.
Basically, the Servian reforms created a sort of hoplite army, based on the phalanx used in the classical Greek and Hellenistic world.
Depiction of a Greek hoplite battle
In 509 B.C. when Lucius Junius Brutus and other noblemen expelled the last king, Tarquinius Superbus, and the Roman Republic was born, the king was replaced by two consuls, also known as praetors. These men were elected every year and they held supreme civil and military power.
By 311 B.C. the army was divided into four legions, and the command of these legions was divided between the two consuls.
Each legion had six military tribunes that were elected by the comitia centuriata.
The first detailed account of the military hierarchy of the Republican Roman army comes down to us from Polybius (200-118 B.C.) who was a Greek historian during the Hellenistic period, and an eyewitness of the sack of Carthage in the third Punic War as well as the Roman annexation of mainland Greece, both in 146 B.C.
This army of the middle Republic (c. 290-88 B.C.) has come to be known as the ‘Polybian’ army, and this army was divided not into cohorts and centuries, but rather maniples.
Stele depicting Polybius (200-118 B.C.)
The total force of the Roman army at this time was four legions with a total of sixteen to twenty thousand infantry and fifteen-hundred to twenty-five hundred cavalry. Allied forces could also be called upon, and mercenaries hired, if Rome needed to bolster its forces.
At this time, praetors, who were lesser magistrates beneath the commanding consuls, could also command a legion, and in times of crisis, a dictator was appointed for a six month period, taking over full command of the army from both consuls. The dictator could himself, appoint a second-in-command known as the magister equitum, or ‘master of horse’. During the dictatorships of Julius Caesar, both Marcus Antonius and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus served as magister equitum, appointed by Caesar himself.
Apart from overall command by the dictator, from about 190 B.C., the army was still under the control of the consuls or praetors, but forces could also be commanded by legati, or ‘legates’ who were senior senators. One or more legati went with a governor or magistrate when he took control of a new province, and so they had both civil and military duties.
But what were the other officer ranks in the manipular army?
Rome’s four legions included twenty-four tribunes at this time. These were equestrian class men. Senior tribunes could also command extra legions that needed to be raised beyond the standard four.
Each tribune in the legions could select ten centurions who chose their own seconds. The most senior centurion was known as the centurio primi pili, or ‘first spear’. Centurions themselves were able to appoint an optio as a rear-guard officer, and two standard bearers, or signiferi.
Republican Roman army formation from 1960 film, Spartcus.
Each legion was divided into maniples which were composed of two centuries each. The primus pilus centurion normally commanded the right hand maniple.
When it comes to cavalry, the legion’s force of horsemen was divided into ten turmae of thirty cavalrymen. Each turmae had three decurions who led ten men.
With all of these titles and ranks, one might think that the Republican army was actually quite similar to the imperial Roman army we are so familiar with. However, when you look at it more closely, the manipular army was quite different. Here, Polybius explains:
The tribunes in Rome, after administering the oath, fix for each legion a day and place at which the men are to present themselves without arms and then dismiss them. When they come to the meeting place, they choose the youngest and poorest to form the velites; the next to them are made hastati; those in the prime of life principes; and the oldest of all triarii, these being the names among the Romans of the four classes in each legion distinct in age and equipment. They divide them so that the senior men known as triarii number six hundred, the principes twelve hundred, the hastati twelve hundred, the rest, consisting of the youngest, being velites. If the legion consists of more than four thousand men, they divide accordingly, except as regards the triarii, the number of whom is always the same…
…From each of the classes except the youngest they elect ten centurions according to merit, andthen they elect a second ten. All these are called centurions, and the first man elected has a seat in the military council. The centurions then appoint an equal number of rearguard officers (optiones). Next, in conjunction with the centurions, they divide each class into ten companies, except the velites, and assign to each company two centurions and two optiones from among the elected officers. The velites are divided equally among all the companies; these companies are called ordines or manipuli or vexilla, and their officers are called centurions or ordinum ductores. Finally these officers appoint from the ranks two of the finest and bravest men to be standard-bearers (vexillarii) in each maniple.
(Polybius, The Rise of the Roman Empire, Book VI.6)
The Roman legion c.160 B.C. according to Polybius (image: The Making of the Roman Army, p.34, Lawrence Keppie)
So, the Republican army contained battle formations of maniples of velites (light-armed troops in the first line), hastati (spearmen in the second line), principes (chief men in the third line), and triarii (older men in the fourth line). Around 130 B.C., men were placed in the battle lines not according to their financial status, but according to their age and experience.
Each legion had ten maniples of one-hundred and twenty men each of hastati and principes, and ten maniples of sixty men each of triarii. In addition to these, a legion had reserves of rorarii and accensi in the rear who were, it seems, servants of some sort.
When it comes to Italian allied forces, these were known as the socii, and they served in cohorts of five hundred men commanded by a praefectus. Ten cohorts of socii formed an ala sociorum which was about the same size as a legion with similar organization. This was the precursor of Roman alae, or auxiliary forces (such as Sarmatian or Numidian cavalry), during the imperial period.
Mercenary forces, such as Cretan archers, were also employed.
When it comes to the army of the late Republic (c. 88-30 B.C.), there was an increase in the delegation of military power to the legati who were, as a requirement, senators who had served as quaestors as a minimum. (For more information of the various levels of office, check out this post on the Cursus Honorum)
In 52 B.C. a law was created that required five years between holding an office and a provincial military command, and because Rome was a republic at the time, there were several commanders-in-chief of the army, the idea being that no one man could become too powerful. As we know, however, this was not a foolproof system!
The legions were still commanded by six tribunes but these men were increasingly young and ambitious and hoping to enter into the Senate. Tribunes and prefects could go on to be legates too.
As new territories were acquired, and as Rome expanded, new legions were raised to hold those new territories. Magistrates were given more powers and longer terms beyond the previous one-year, and proprietors and proconsuls were given command of legions for longer periods. An example of this is Caesar’s command in Gaul.
Growth from Republic to Empire (Wikimedia Commons)
The greatest, most long-lasting changes to the Roman army occurred around 107 B.C. under what has come to be called the Marian Reforms.
Gaius Marius was a pro-Plebeian statesmen and successful general who served seven terms as consul of Rome. He led successful campaigns in North Africa and Germania. But Marius is perhaps best known for the major changes to the Roman army in which he moved things from a citizen, manipular militia to a standing, professional army.
Under Marius’ leadership, the Roman army became better, more evenly equipped, and went from the widespread use of maniples to cohorts as the main sub-unit of the Roman legion. This was the birth of the imperial Roman legion we are familiar with today.
The maniple vs. the cohort (image: The Making of the Roman Army, p. 65, Lawrence Keppie)
But perhaps one of the biggest reforms Gaius Marius made, and one which won him a lot of enemies in the upper classes, was to open up the ranks of Rome’s legions to the capite censi, that class of landless men who, once in the army, were seen by some to be the cause of greed and lawlessness in the ranks.
Nevertheless, this new Roman army made a marked improvement. Soldiers had better weapons and carried all their equipment on their own backs which made troop movements and marches more efficient. This is where the term, ‘Marius’ Mules’ comes from.
Gaius Marius is also credited with the introduction of the eagle standard, the aquila, given to each legion and which became a focus of loyalty and affection for the troops.
Image of a Roman eagle standard, or ‘aquila’ (Wikimedia Commons)
The Roman army of the early Republic was now drastically changed, larger, and more efficient. More legions were created as Rome expanded its reach around the Mediterranean basin and into Europe. As the lower classes of Rome’s citizens were allowed to enlist, they found purpose, coin, and opportunities in a new, professional, standing army.
Of course, the army would continue to evolve with career soldiers serving for twenty years or more, and other classes moving up the ranks during such periods as the reign of Septimius Severus who also allowed soldiers to marry. The soldiery would later make emperors, or destroy them.
One thing was certain: wherever in the world Rome could be found, the Roman army had got there first.
Thank you for reading.
As always, we would like to thank all our men and women in service, and their families, for the sacrifices they have made, and continue to make, to keep us all safe and free.
On November 11th, and every other day of the year, we remember you and are grateful.
This year, Eagles and Dragons Publishing is proud to have supported Wounded Warriors Canada and their important PTSD Service Dog Program, and the Couples-Based Equine Therapy Program both of which play an important role in the healing process for service men and woman and their families.
Check out the Wounded Warriors Canada website here:
As ever, we have come to a most solemn time of year: Remembrance Day.
On November 11th, at the 11thhour, we commemorate the end of World War I, but more importantly, we remember and honour the lives and sacrifices of our men and women in the armed forces and emergency services, as well as their families.
Most of us likely know someone who has been touched by the cold hand of War, be it a grandparent, parent, spouse, or some other family member, a friend, a colleague or someone else.
Sadly, war and conflict are not only constants of history, but also of the present.
In the Eagles and Dragonsseries of books, many of the main characters are soldiers, and later in the series, themes of post-traumatic stress are central to the story.
But that is fiction, and most readers like a happy ending.
Sadly, in real-life, veterans and their families do not always get a happy ending. The trauma of war is real, acute, and destructive, and our servicemen and women need all the support they can get.
They deserve it, don’t they?
Of course they do!
In previous years, I’ve written about charities and programs that have used historical sources and texts to help veterans with their healing.
One of these highlighted the amazing work of the charity, Theatre of War, in which actors perform ancient Greek plays by Euripides, Sophocles and others in order to help veterans discuss the difficult emotions and traumas brought about by war.
If you haven’t read the post about Theatre of War, then you can check it out by CLICKING HERE.
This year, I wanted to highlight the work of another wonderful program using literature and theatre to help veterans overcome the trauma of war and find some camaraderie at home.
The program is called Shakespeare with Veterans.
When I read about this, I knew that I just had to write about them.
Shakespeare with Veterans is a not-for-profit program put on with help from the Kentucky Shakespeare company and veterans from the local Vet Centre and the female vet organization, Athena’s Sisters.
The program itself is the brainchild of Colonel Fred Johnson (USA retired), a veteran himself who saw and experienced the healing potential of art when he needed it. He chose Shakespeare because, as he has been quoted “no one in the English language speaks more directly to the Veteran experience and the warrior’s heart than William Shakespeare.”
“O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times.
Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!
Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,–
Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips,
To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue–
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter’d with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.”
(Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I; Mark Antony’s monologue)
Shakespeare with Veterans is a free, weekly conversation group in which veteran men and women of all ranks can come together to talk about their shared experiences in the context of Shakespeare’s plays, while telling their own stories of war, life, and family.
By looking at Shakespeare’s works, they delve into themes of war, empathy, tragedy, and redemption. They are able to talk about how they feel with those who understand.
Shakespeare with Veterans participants do not perform the plays in their entirety, but focus on performances of those soliloquies and scenes that resonate with their shared experiences as veterans, as warriors. Unlike programs where trained actors perform plays for veterans, these veterans are the performers. They discuss, read, rehearse and perform for the public and fellow vets!
Some of the plays they have performed scenes from are Merchant of Venice (themes of revenge), Hamlet (theme of suicide), Julius Caesar (themes of guilt and death), and of course, Henry V and the important themes of honour, duty and brotherhood that are familiar to all the participant vets.
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
(Henry V, Act IV, Scene III; Henry’s St. Crispin’s Day speech)
I find it heartening and hopeful that programs like this exist for our veterans, and though they may not be a good fit for some, it does seem that for others, it is a form of relief or deliverance from the trauma they are dealing with as a result of service to their country.
I love Shakespeare, and have studied his works for many years, but this is an aspect of the power of the Bard that I was truly ignorant of until now.
To read more about Shakespeare with Veterans, and Kentucky Shakespeare, CLICK HERE.
You can also watch this video of one of their performances:
This Remembrance Day, and every day, I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to all the men and women in uniform, and their families, who have risked their lives on the battlefields of the world.
Thank you for your courage, and thank you for your service.
On November 11th, at the eleventh hour, I’ll be at my local cenotaph, standing alongside my fellow civilians, veterans and emergency services crews to honour and remember those have served, and those who have fallen in the line of duty.
I suspect that most of us have a connection to someone who has served in one of the many conflicts across the world since WWI and WWII to the present day. Or perhaps you know someone who battles to save lives on the streets of our cities?
For myself, one of my grandfathers served in both World Wars, and my other grandfather in WWII.
This is a time of year when I think of them more than usual.
The Normandy Landing – WWII
I write a lot about warriors in the ancient world, and the struggles they face on and off the battlefield.
My protagonists have fought long, bloody campaigns, far away from the comforts of civilization.
They’ve faced enemies that will not come out into the open, and sometimes must rely on supposed allies that they cannot trust.
For the warriors in my books, life is a constant fight for survival. They fight and kill and die for Rome, all for the purposes of advancing the Empire’s plans for conquest.
Artist impression of Roman cavalry ala engaging Caledonians
Indeed, one of the themes running through all my books is that of the powerful few sending many to die on the battlefields of the Empire. The soldiers are at the whim of those roaming and ruling the corridors of power.
Sound familiar?
My, how history does repeat itself.
Always at the back of my protagonist’s mind is the family that he misses. But if he thinks on them too much, if he loses his focus at any time, his enemies will tear him apart.
The warrior’s life has never been an easy one, especially when you have something to lose.
Mother and son reunited
But what happens when it’s time for the warrior to ‘come home’?
How is it even possible after the life they’ve led? Can they really ‘come home’?
How have warriors, men and women, dealt with the aftermath of war?
In his book The Warrior Ethos, Steven Pressfield asks a pertinent question:
All of us know brothers and sisters who have fought with incredible courage on the battlefield, only to fall apart when they came home. Why? Is it easier to be a soldier than to be a civilian?
In one way, perhaps life at war is more straightforward. Every day, every moment perhaps, your thoughts, your purpose, are focussed on the objective – take that position, hold that region, protect your brothers and sisters in arms, stay alive. In some situations, it’s kill or be killed.
We’re back to primal instincts here.
Stepping from the world of war into the civilian world is an unimaginable transition.
Today, we have any number of soldier’s aid societies and government programs and guides that are intended to help veterans of wars reintegrate into society.
These groups do good work that is much-needed, but is it enough? How can non-combatants in civilian society understand the physical and emotional trauma that is experienced by warriors after the battle?
In the ancient and medieval worlds, there were no societies or organizations whose purpose was to help returning warriors.
British Troops in WWI
Granted, in warrior societies such as Sparta, the majority of warriors probably enjoyed the fighting. All Spartan men were warriors. That was their purpose.
But in the Roman Empire, returning warriors would have had to reintegrate in a way similar to today, rather than ancient Sparta. Later Roman society valued not just fighting prowess, but also political acuity, the arts, rhetoric, skill at a trade, generally being a good citizen in society.
Many veterans are homeless when they come home…
Going back to peace time in a civilian society after the straightforward survival life of a prolonged campaign would have been tough.
We read about legionaries coming back to Rome and getting into all sorts of trouble, their days and nights taken up with gambling, brawling, and whoring.
It’s no wonder that generals and emperors created coloniae for retired soldiers on the fringes of the Empire. In these places, veterans would not be able to cause trouble in Rome, but they would also be given the opportunity to have some land and make a life for themselves.
Thamugadi – A Roman colonia in North Africa for retired veterans
In my book Warriors of Epona, my protagonist is reunited with his family. He has to face peace time.
How does he deal with this? How does his family deal with him?
War changes a person, whether it’s in the past or the present day. It’s an experience unlike any other and I salute anyone who faces the conflict that comes with stepping from the world of war into the world of peace, and vice versa.
In the Roman Empire, they were two very different battlefields, as they are, I suspect, today.
I imagine that reconciling the two worlds can push a man or woman to their very limits.
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is real.
I’ve often thought that governments should step up more when it comes to helping veterans. How about free college education for veterans and their families? Or exemption from taxation for them and their families for all they have risked and sacrificed? What about a good pension?
Veterans today shouldn’t have to worry about finances or a roof over their heads. They have enough to deal with when the fighting is done.
I’ve read that Alexander the Great actually did these things for his veterans, and the Roman Empire granted lands to hers.
Any government people who happen to be reading this should take notes.
We can also do our part, whether it’s wearing a red poppy, thanking a veteran for their dangerous work, or donating to an organization that directly helps veterans and their families.
The very least we can do is be quiet for a minute at 11:00 a.m. on November 11th.
As ever, at this time of year, I feel like my words fall short, that they are not nearly enough. I’d like to close this by expressing my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to the men and women in uniform who have risked, and are risking, their lives to keep us safe and free.
THANK YOU.
And thank you, dear readers, for following along.
In future, when you read a novel about warriors in the ancient world, do bear in mind that there are modern equivalents. The homecomings for many of them are far more difficult than we can imagine.
Today, there are numerous organizations whose sole purpose is to help veterans, young and old, to make the transition from war zone to home front.
This year, Eagles and Dragons Publishing has made donations to two organizations whom we believe are making a real difference in the lives of veterans.
Wounded Warriors Canada’s mission is “To honour and support Canada’s ill and injured Canadian Armed Forces members, Veterans, First Responders and their families.”
Eagles and Dragons Publishing has donated to the ‘Couples Overcoming PTSD’ program.
VETS Canada is committed to helping homeless and at-risk veterans reintegrate into civilian life.
Eagles and Dragons Publishing has made a general donation to this wonderful, volunteer-led organization helping veterans in need.
Every year around this time, I try to write a post dedicated to the theme of Remembrance Day, something of a hat-tip to the service men and women who are scattered over the Earth trying to protect the world from itself.
After all, everyone one of my books deals with warriors, the struggle of war, and the changes war wreaks upon the fighters, their families, and the world around them. Eagles and Dragons Publishing’s #1 best selling book in 2016, A Dragon among the Eagles, is dedicated to men and women in service (and I mean that with utmost sincerity), and every year I attend my local Remembrance Day ceremony and think of all those who have laid down, or are currently risking their lives for the rest of us.
D-Day at Omaha Beach, Normandy
I think of my two grandfathers who fought in the World Wars as part of the British Army and Greek Merchant Navy respectively, and of my cousin who lost her husband outside of Kandahar more recently.
But is this enough of a tribute?
I don’t think so.
Frankly, I feel like anything I do or say or write, no matter how sincere and heartfelt it is, is not enough to be of sufficient thanks.
And I’m not talking about honouring war or the politicians who send men and women to war for their own selfish ends. I’m not going to sully this post with talk of political motives.
The troops are not responsible for the wars that happened in the past, or that are happening as we speak.
British Troops in Afghanistan
Sadly, we’ve seen a whole new generation of veterans emerge, people younger than you or I. When I was young, the word veteran was relegated to grandparents wearing poppies, or stories from history.
Not so anymore.
And we’ve a seen a resurgence of anti-war, pro-soldier art in the form of books, music, illustration, poetry, film and more. So much that seeks to honour the sacrifices being made.
Is it important to create these works of art?
Absolutely.
But again, is it enough?
I still don’t think so…
A new generation of troops
Let me say this now. I don’t have any answers. You won’t leave this post thinking, wow, he’s hit it on the head!
That is not my intent. But my hope is that we can all be a bit more aware and leave this post with some questions in our minds.
My original intent with this post was to rant about the lack of support for troops returning from various tours in the current hell-holes of the earth.
But ranting isn’t productive either.
WWII veterans visiting a cemetery in Normandy
In truth, when I started research for this post, I did some digging on-line for programs intended to support veterans and their families here in Canada, as well as in the USA and United Kingdom.
To my surprise, there are a lot of support systems in place.
That’s good, because veterans of any age are dealing with a tonne of shite that you and I can only imagine. Here are just a few:
extreme uncertainty
re-integration into civilian society
proper health care for injuries sustained in line of duty
PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder)
relationship difficulties
unemployment
homelessness
financial uncertainty and debt
That is a pretty heavy list, and there are a lot more that could be added to it.
The support that is out there is largely charity and foundation-driven. Many groups seem to be doing some outstanding work, and they do get some government support, but perhaps not enough.
Shouldn’t the people sending troops into danger do their utmost to help those same troops when they return home and are in crisis as a result of combat?
Alexander riding into battle at the head of his troops
This leads me to the title of this post: Rewarding Sacrifice: What today’s world leaders can learn from Alexander the Great
Whenever I think of the prime example of a true leader, I think of Alexander the Great.
Yes, I know many think of him as blood-thirsty tyrant, a maniacal conqueror, maybe even a selfish psychopath.
Whatever you think of Alexander the Great, however, you can’t deny that he shared in his soldiers’ hardships, and led by example. He inspired his troops to do what many thought was impossible, and after it all, including looming mutinies, they still loved him.
Alexander led from the front in every engagement, and when the battles were over, he knew how to reward his soldiers.
He knew that they had given everything to him, that they had been away from their families for years. They had fought and died, and Alexander, though disappointed with their grumblings at times, knew how to reward their sacrifices.
So what can world leaders learn from Alexander the Great?
What prompted this question was a passage I came across while doing some research for the (still ongoing) Alexander novels.
When Alexander’s army had crossed the Gedrosian Desert at the end of their long march to India, and they arrived at Opis, the troops, jealous of ranks given to Persians, threatened mutiny again.
Alexander delivered his famous ‘speech at Opis’ then, speaking to his disgruntled troops, not as the son of Zeus, or the new ‘Great King’, but as one of them. He could do this, and his words did move them, for he had shared their toils. If you would like to read the full speech in Arrian’s Anabasis, CLICK HERE.
But what we are concerned with here is not the mutiny, or the speech itself. It is how Alexander rewarded the veterans, those unfit for service due to old age and injury, or those unwilling to go further.
According to A.P. Dascalakis in his book Alexander the Great and Hellenism, Alexander:
“…had paid off all their debts, without asking how they had been contracted: they received high pay, besides what they seized as booty after every siege. Most of them had golden wreaths, as immortal guerdons of their valor and of honor from him. And if any died, their death was glorious, their burial splendid; bronze statues of most of them were set up in their towns, their parents were honoured and were exempt of all tax or levy.”
Think about some of that for a moment…and then think of the list of things troops returning home have to deal with after serving.
Canadian troops in Afghanistan
From what I can tell, there are support programs to help veterans with PTSD, injuries, and general health care, but we still hear a lot about veterans living on the streets, unable to afford a home, however small, or even get a job.
Some might say ‘Hey, a lot of other people are out there facing those same things!’, and that is true, but not everyone steps forward to defend their fellow citizens on the battlefield.
Alexander the Great honoured his soldiers with wreaths and statues and his love, but more practically, he paid off their debts, gave them good pensions, and rewarded their families by exempting them from taxation. He also ordered that soldiers’ children be given a proper education.
This got me to wondering…
If returning veterans did not have to worry about debt, taxation, homelessness, little to no pension, or further education for themselves or their children, they could focus more on the intense healing needed for them to deal with PTSD, health issues, new disabilities, and re-integration into the society which they had stepped up to defend.
Out of the trenches in WWI
I think Alexander the Great had it right. Give your veterans the rewards they deserve, commensurate with the sacrifices they have made.
I know this is more practical, but sometimes I’m guessing that is what’s needed.
Here are some crazy ideas Alexander the Great would approve, and that world leaders could implement for veterans:
Forgive all debts for veterans and their families so that they can have a fresh start
Give them boundless health care to overcome their wounds (mental and physical)
Ensure all vets get high-level pensions
Create legislation that forces all colleges and universities to provide free tuition for veterans and veterans’ children
Some of this may already be done in some countries, but I suspect most not.
Does this mean higher taxes for the rest of us civilians?
Likely, yes. But these are things that I think we can do for those who put themselves on the line for the rest of us.
Greek Resistance fighters in WWII
Call me naïve and idealistic, but with everything else vets are dealing with, money worries should not be among them.
As I said before, I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t know about all the programs for veterans and their families that are out there.
Here are a few that I know of and which I came across while researching this post:
If any of you know of some particularly helpful charities or programs in the country where you are, please do share the information in the comments below. You never know who will be reading and whether something here might help.
Also, if you haven’t heard about Theatre of War, you may want to check out this post on healing PTSD with ancient Greek tragedy. PTSD was a condition that afflicted ancient warriors as well as modern ones, and this particular theatre group has been making great headway in helping veterans to cope with PTSD. CLICK HERE to check it out.
As for what us civilians can do, it may not be enough, but every little must help.
Pin a poppy on your jacket, donate to a veterans’ charity, go to a ceremony, write a blog post, shake a vet’s hand, say thank you to a veteran.
It’s all better than doing nothing, lest we forget…
Remembrance Day is here, in Britain, Canada, and other Commonwealth nations. This is the time of year when we pin poppies on our jackets and hats to show that we remember the sacrifices of the men and women who have served their countries in war.
This is a solemn time of year; many people have known folks who have served in one conflict or another. For myself, my grandfather served in WWI as a young man, my other grandfather in the merchant navy in WWII. I have friends and relatives who have served in the more recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Every year, I try to write a special post around Remembrance Day because I feel it is utterly important not to forget. I often write about war and warriors. It’s something that is always at the front of my mind. I haven’t served in the military myself, but I have the utmost respect for those that have and do.
This year is the 100th anniversary of World War I, the conflict that began the wearing of poppies. Hard to believe it‘s been that long since the Battle of Liège, or since the earth shook with shelling and gunfire at Verdun and the Somme.
The Tower of London Remembers poppies in commemoration of the centenary of WWI
We remember the dead, and the ultimate sacrifices they have made, we bow our heads to them as the guns salute on November 11th.
But what about the living?
Troops in Afghanistan
In war, the casualties are monstrous, but there are those who do manage to come home. What about them?
Those are the troops I want us to think about today.
What prompted this was an article that a colleague of mine gave to me to read, an article that has indeed struck a chord.
PTSD stands for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, and it is, perhaps always has been, a bane on the lives of warriors for ages. It was not always acknowledged as many former troops were simply told to ‘suck-it-up’. But there is a higher level of awareness now, with a variety of treatments being sought by, or offered to, veterans.
The man behind Theatre of War is Bryan Doerries. He has been studying and translating ancient Greek dramas for years.
What is Theatre of War? Using ancient Greek tragedies, particularly Ajax and Philoctetes by Sophocles, Doerries and a small group of rotating actors travel to military bases and hospitals around the world to perform readings of these plays.
There are no stages, props, or pageantry, just Doerries and about three actors sitting at a table. You might think this would be boring, and so might the troops who were ‘voluntold’ to go. But one cannot underestimate the language of Sophocles, the message, and the powerful delivery of the actors.
After attending these ‘performances’, veteran troops come forward to say that they completely relate to the pain of the warrior-characters in these plays, that they do not feel alone. These performances have been helping troops with PTSD with their healing.
Before we go further, here are a few statistics from the article to put things in perspective.
The number of U.S. soldiers who are committing suicide is at an unprecedented level with nearly one per day among those on active duty, and one per hour among veterans. The number is something like 8,000 a year at the moment.
The horrors of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
When I read those numbers, my jaw dropped. It seems like there is no heroic return for many of our troops, no ticker-tape parade. It seems more likely that reintegration with civilian society may be more difficult and lonely than war itself.
In 2008, Doerries’ group received $3.7 million from the Pentagon to tour military installations around the world and they have staged more than 250 shows for 50,000 military personnel.
But what is it about Sophocles’ plays that modern troops relate to so much? What leaves these men and women in tears at the end of each performance?
Sophocles
One thing that the article highlighted for me, and of which I was not aware before, is that Sophocles himself was a warrior and commander, his father an Attic amour-maker. Sophocles had lived through the Greek victories over the Persians at Marathon and Salamis, and then served in the bloody years of the Peloponnesian War when the Greeks tore each other apart.
These were deeply traumatic times.
What hadn’t really clicked for me before reading this article was that with military service in Athens being compulsory among men, most of Sophocles’ audience would have been soldiers and veterans of bloody conflicts.
Sophocles spoke to his audience, he addressed the costs of war, the trauma of battle, the grief and rage that lingered long after the laurel wreaths had been handed-out, and the praise of one’s comrades had ceased.
The blood and chaos of warfare
Theatre of War mostly performs two plays for military audiences – Ajax and Philoctetes.
In Greek history/legend, Ajax was one of the greatest of the Greek warriors during the Trojan War. He was a good friend of Achilles, had won numerous battles for the Greeks, and survived one-on-one combat with the greatest of Troy’s heroes, Hector. Ajax inspired his brothers-in-arms.
But even the mighty fall, it seems. In Sophocles’ play, after nine years of fighting on foreign shores, Ajax, who carried Achilles’ body from the battlefield, has a disagreement with Odysseus about who should get Achilles’ god-made armour. Agamemnon and Menelaus decide to award the honour to Odysseus and this insult sends Ajax into a rage. He swears he will kill the sons of Atreus and Odysseus and any others who have insulted him.
Ajax carrying the body of Achilles from the battlefield
However, the gods are not on Ajax’s side. Athena drives him mad and he ends up slaughtering a host of animals in his tent, thinking they are his perceived enemies. Tecmessa, Ajax’s slave woman and consort, relays what happened:
As captives bulls and herdsmen’s dogs and sheep,
Of which a part he strangled, others felled
And cleft in twain; others again he lashed,
Treating those beasts like human prisoners.
Then rushing out, he with some phantom talked,
Launching against the sons of Atreus now,
Now ‘gainst Ulysses, ravings void of sense,
Boasting how he had paid their insults home.
Then once more rushing back into the tent,
By slow degrees to his right mind he came.
But when he saw the tent with carnage heaped,
Crying aloud, he smote his head, and then
Flung himself down amid the gory wreck,
And with clenched fingers grasped and tore his hair.
So a long time he sat and spoke no word.
At last, with imprecations terrible
If I refused, he bade me tell him all,
What had befallen and how it came about.
And I, my friends, o’erwhelmed with terror, told
All that I knew of that which he had done.
Thereat he uttered piercing cries of grief,
Such as had never come from him before,
For in loud lamentations to indulge
He ever held a craven weakling’s part,
And, stifling outcries, moaned not loud but deep,
Like the deep roaring of a wounded bull.
But in this plight, prostrate and desperate,
Refusing food and drink, my hero lies
Amidst the mangled bodies, motionless.
That he is brooding on some fell design,
His wails and exclamations plainly show.
But, O kind friends, ’twas to this end I came,
Enter the tent and aid me if ye can;
The words of friends are desperate sorrow’s cure.
(Sophocles, Ajax)
When the clouds of madness are swept from Ajax’s eyes, he is shamed by what he has done and goes into deep depression. I’m guessing that it must be the same for modern troops who come home and are haunted by the things that they have experienced, seen and done.
Ajax in anguish
We must remember that this is one of the greatest warriors in the army, second only to Achilles. He has Tecmessa, and he has a son, he has had honours heaped upon him, and yet he cannot deal with what he has done. The strain of 9 years of war have had their toll.
What now am I to do, since of the gods
I am abhorred, of the Hellenic host
Hated, to Troy and all this land a foe?
Shall I to their own quarrel leave the Kings,
Unmoor, and homeward cross the Aegean wave?
How can I face my father Telamon?
How can he bear to look upon the son
Who comes to him disgraced, without the prize,
When glory’s wreath has circled his own brow?
(Sophocles, Ajax)
Ajax decides he can no longer be among the living, such is his disgrace. He decides to leave his tent, despite Tecmessa’s protestations. Alone outside, on the earth surrounding Troy, he plants his sword in the ground, point upward, and kills himself…
O death, O death, come and thy office do;
Long, where I go, our fellowship will be.
O thou glad daylight, which I now behold,
O sun, that ridest in the firmament,
I greet you, and shall greet you never more.
O light, O sacred soil of my own land,
O my ancestral home, my Salamis,
Famed Athens and my old Athenian mates,
Rivers and springs and plains of Troy, farewell;
Farewell all things in which I lived my life;
‘Tis the last word of Ajax to you all,
When next I speak ’twill be to those below.
(Sophocles, Ajax)
Ajax’s suicide
In the video trailer for Theatre of War, which I link to below, you will see various troops coming forward at the end of a performance to talk about their own demons, and how they very much identified with Ajax and the torment he was feeling.
The suicide statistics I mentioned earlier are telling and terrifying, and they align with these emotions which Sophocles expressed through the hero Ajax over 2000 years ago.
It is wondrous, the therapeutic role that culture and the arts have to play. Doerries and the Theatre of War seem to have tapped into this on a visceral level to engage an audience that has been neglected in decades past. According to the article, the purpose is to “reach communities where intense feelings have been suppressed, in hopes of bringing people closer to articulating their suffering.”
From the numbers of troops, from all ranks, who come forward after the performances, Doerries and the Theatre of War are helping.
One has to wonder what else Sophocles might have produced, and to what effect? Only seven of Sophocles’ plays have come down to us. It is reckoned that he actually produced over 100. There’s a thought! What other issues might he have tackled which involved the ancient warrior and those around him?
One of the other plays that has survived is Philoctetes.
Philoctetes, in history/legend was one of the greatest archers in the ancient world. He was also the inheritor of the bow of Herakles, which that tragic hero bequeathed to Philoctetes when he was the only one who would help Herakles to light his funeral pyre. Another great hero who committed suicide.
Philoctetes had joined the expedition to Troy, but when they first arrived on the other side of the Aegean he was bitten by a snake on his foot. The wound festered and stank and Philoctetes was always in unimaginable pain.
But his comrades did not help him. Instead, because he was so loud and disruptive to the sacrifices and morale, they abandoned him on a desolate island to be alone with his pain and torment.
Philoctetes abandoned
Sophocles’ play is not about a soldier who is driven to suicide, but rather a soldier who is abandoned, whose friends are not there for him when he needs them most.
His former friends do return, however, after 10 years of war. But it is not for him that they return, but for the bow of Herakles, without which it is said the Greeks cannot win against the Trojans. Odysseus comes to Philoctetes with Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, to get the bow.
Naturally, Philoctetes is bitter and might have killed his comrades had not Neoptolemus stolen the bow at Odysseus’ insistence. Philoctetes is distraught at losing his one great possession, the thing which has kept him alive.
O pest, O bane, O of all villainy
Vile masterpiece, what hast thou done to me?
How am I duped? Wretch, hast thou no regard
For the unfortunate, the suppliant?
Thou tak’st my life when thou dost take my bow.
Give it me back, good youth, I do entreat.
O by thy gods, rob me not of my life.
Alas! he answers not, but as resolved
Upon denial, turns away his face.
O havens, headlands, lairs of mountain beasts,
That my companions here have been, O cliffs
Steep-faced, since other audience have I none,
In your familiar presence I complain
Of the wrong done me by Achilles’ son.
Home he did swear to take me, not to Troy.
Against his plighted faith the sacred bow
Of Heracles, the son of Zeus, he steals,
And means to show it to the Argive host.
He fancies that he over strength prevails,
Not seeing that I am a corpse, a shade,
A ghost. Were I myself, he had not gained
The day, nor would now save by treachery…
… I return
To thee disarmed, bereft of sustenance.
Deserted, I shall wither in that cell,
No longer slaying bird or sylvan beast
With yonder bow. Myself shall with my flesh
Now feed the creatures upon which I fed,
And be by my own quarry hunted down.
Thus shall I sadly render blood for blood,
And all through one that seemed to know no wrong.
Curse thee I will not till all hope is fled
Of thy repentance; then accursed die.
(Sophocles, Philoctetes)
Philoctetes has experienced not only pain and torment, but extreme isolation for an extended period of time. If he had been able, he likely would have taken out his anger and rage on his former comrades who had come to get him, those who had abandoned him, mainly Odysseus.
Neoptolemus and Odysseus take the bow of Herakles from Philoctetes
But the Gods decide to favour Philoctetes, and in the legend Herakles himself appears and urges his old friend to return to the war with his bow. This Philoctetes does, and he is one of the men who hides in the Trojan Horse. Sophocles’ play does not go into this, but focusses more on the pain of abandonment and isolation.
How many modern troops, or troops through the ages for that matter, would also have experienced such deep pain in isolation, real and figurative?
How many troops come home to family and friends who, despite the very best of intentions, just don’t understand what they have been through? They can’t understand unless they have been there themselves.
The Theatre of War and its performances of Ajax and Philoctetes seems to provide just what is needed for troops who are alone, and depressed, and dealing with PTSD and all the horrors that that entails – a forum of common understanding.
As I said before, I have not served in the military, so I can only imagine what our troops must be going through. However, there is a level on which I can understand some of this that is perhaps related.
It has to do with the study of history in general. Over the years, when I have felt isolated, out-of-place, depressed, or felt difficult emotion to some extreme, I’ve always found comfort in history, the people, the events.
Medieval battle
Somehow, studying and trying to understand history, whatever the period, has always helped me to feel more attuned to the world about me, less lonely. No matter how bad I might have thought things were, how little I might have been understood, history, the past, has always shown me that similar things, more difficult things, have happened to others. I think the knowledge of the challenges people in the past have overcome has always given me strength.
I can’t imagine my life without having studied the past. From those difficult teenage years to the present day, the past has always been my comfort and compass, and helped me to move forward however small my steps.
Perhaps that is what our troops, those veterans of extreme emotion, get from listening to their fellow warriors’ voices out of the past?
Bryan Doerries says it at the end of each of his group’s performances:
“Most importantly, if we had one message to deliver to you, two thousand four hundred years later, it’s simply this: You are not alone across time.”
So, this November 11th, and all through the year, I will ever spare a thought or prayer for warriors past and present. It shouldn’t matter what you think of the kings or politicians who sent them to battle for whatever ends.
If history has taught me anything, it is that warriors through the ages have faced incredible challenges and horrors, and for that they deserve our compassion.
Lest we forget…
Thank you for reading.
If you would like to learn a bit more about the Theatre of War, be sure to visit the website and spread the word. You can also watch the video trailer which shows some of the work they do and includes troops expressing their feelings post-performance. Powerful stuff!
