1700091792 8　古罗马帝国的军队建制与军人生活

1700091793

1700091794 1.Eclog.1.71.

1700091795

1700091796 2.W.Bahr, De centurionibus legionariis（on the Centurions of the Legions），Berlin dissertation，1900，p.45f.

1700091797

1700091798 3.Bang, The Germans in the Roman Service（Die Germanen im römischen Dienst），p.78.

1700091799

1700091800 4.This is a very significant piece of new knowledge which we owe to Domaszewski’s careful study of inscriptions, The Hierarchy of the Roman Army（Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres），1908.

1700091801

1700091802 5.This results from the very nature of the situation and is also evident from a citation in Hyginus, de mun.，Chapter 42，which I find on page 60 in Domaszewski’s Hierarchy. It was probably the same as in the present-day Austrian army（before 1918），where the regiments, in addition to their German army language, had their own national regimental language. As the Romanization of the provinces progressed, the national character of the cohorts gradually faded out. It may also have happened that cohorts stationed very far from their home area received other replacements and changed their character as a result. We must agree with Mommsen.when he emphasizes in Hermes 19：211，that the national character of the cohorts can be concluded from their designations with certainty only at the time of their creation.

1700091803

1700091804 6.Seeck. History of the Fall of the Ancient World（Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt）1：390，534.

1700091805

1700091806 7.Marquardt, Roman Political Administration（Römische Staatsverwaltung）2.542，2d ed.

1700091807

1700091808 8.In the year 367，cod. Theodosianus. Cited in Marquardt. In Germany.it was not until 1893 that the minimum height was lowered to 1.54 meters. In 1870.the following regulation was still in force: “The smallest height is 1.57 meters, but men under 1.62 may be selected only if they have a particularly strong body frame and if the yearly replacement figure cannot be met without resorting to this expedient.”The smallest height for the Guard is 1.70 Meters.

1700091809

1700091810 In France. Napoleon set the height at 1.59 meters in 1801，but then he lowered it to 1.54 in 1804. In 1818，it was raised again to 1.57，and in 1872，after some variations, it was lowered again to 1.54. The Roman foot was 0.296 meters and was consequently shorter than the old Prussian one, which was 0.314.

1700091811

1700091812 9.Suetonius, Nero 19.

1700091813

1700091814 10.Schulten，“The Domain of the Legion”（“Das Territorium legionis”）. Hermes 29：481.

1700091815

1700091816 11.Cicero, Acad.2.1.2.

1700091817

1700091818 12.Sallustus, Bell. Jug.85.12.

1700091819

1700091820 13.The matter is perhaps somewhat more complicated. The references to the promotion of the centurions are not easy to understand. One theory after another has been advanced on this subject, but no solution has been found that clarifies the whole situation. Theodore Wegeleben’s study，“The Hierarchy of the Roman Centurions”（“Die Rangordnung der römischen Centurionen”），Berlin dissertation，1913，Ad. Weber, publisher, has superseded Domaszewski’s study, to be sure, and has thrown some light on the subject through its comprehensive comparison of the inscriptions, but some points have still remained doubtful. Wegeleben’s conclusion is that the centurions were of equal rank among themselves, with the exception of the six centurions of the first cohort, of whom the three highest ones, of the primus pilus, of the princeps, and of the hastatus, stood so high that they were no longer referred to as centutions at all. This higher position in the first cohort was not just a position of honor. It was also based on the practical organization, since this cohort was 1，000 men strong, while all the other cohorts had about 480 men（Wegeleben, p.37）. We are not told how that was balanced off in the formation of the legion. Either the six centurions of the first cohort or the three highest ones were designated as the primi ordines. Also unclear is the meaning of praepositus（see Grosse, Roman Military History[Römische Militärgeschichte]，p.143）. The remark in Wegeleben, p.60，concerning the receipt of commands is probably not correct; it is contradicted by Polybius 2.34.

1700091821

1700091822 14. We have just recently been enlightened on the situation of the principales by the work of A.von Domaszewski, which is as thoroughas it is valuable. The Hierarchy of the Roman Army（Die Rangord-nung des römischen Heeres），1908.

1700091823

1700091824 Vegetius 2. 7，speaking of the responsibilities, says: “Campigeni, hocest antesignani, ideo sic nominate, quia eorum opere atque virtute exercitii genus crescit in campo.”（“The campigeni, that is antesignani, were so named because the kind of training in the field depended on their hard work and ability.”）I have not found an explanation of this passagein Domaszewski.

1700091825

1700091826 15.The history of the Roman military pay was first set forth in Domaszewski’s essay，”The Military Pay of the Imperial Period”（“Der Truppensold der Kaiserzeit”），Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher, Vol.10，1900. But Domaszewski, in judging the pay increases in the imperial period, failed to take into account the simultaneous debasement of the money. Consequently, he exaggerated the significance of the numerical increase. I consider it impossible that on the occasions of donatives the centurions were excluded and only the soldiers benefited, as Domaszewski believes, p.231，note 2. In that case, depending on the amount of the donative（under Marcus Aurelius it was once 5，000 denarii for the Praetorians, or five times their annual pay），the privates would often have been better off than the officers.

1700091827

1700091828 16.P.Steiner，“The Military Decorations”（“Die dona militaria”），Bonner Jahrbücher 114：1 f.

1700091829

1700091830 17.In Polybius’camp description, there is no mention of a hospital, whereas there is in Hyginus. See W. Haberrling, The Ancient Roman Military Doctors（Die altrömischen Militärärzte），Berlin.1910.

1700091831

1700091832 18.Premerstein，“The Bookkeeping of an Egyptian Legionary Unit”（“Die Buchfuhrung einer ägyptischen Legionsabteilung”）. Klio, Vol. III.

1700091833

1700091834 19.This is reported by Polybius 14.3.6. We may assume that the Romans also retained this custom in later periods.

1700091835

1700091836 20.Tertullian says: “Religio Romanorum tota castrensis signa veneratur signa jurat.signa omnibus deis proponit.”（“The religion of the Romans was completely military. It venerated the standards, swore by the standards, and preferred the standards to all the gods.”）Cited in Harnack, Christian Armies（Militia Christi），p.V.

1700091837

1700091838 21.Alfred von Domaszewski，“The Religion of the Roman Army”（“Die Religion des römischen Heeres”）. Special reprint from the Westdeutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kunst, Vol.14，Trier，1895. The very important point of the difference between the military and civilian forms of religion has not been mentioned in this article. See also Hirschfeld，“On the History of the Roman Emperor Cult”（“Zur Geschichte des römischen Kaiserkultus”），Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, Vol.35，1888.

1700091839

1700091840 22.Beloch.in The Population of the Greco-Roman World（Die Bevölkerung der griechisch-römischen Welt），estimated some 54 million. In a later article, however, in the Rheinisches Museum, Vol.54，1899，he reached a somewhat higher estimate for Gaul than in his book. I myself have gone even higher. See Vol. I, p.493. The higher estimate for Gaul tends in turn to lower somewhat the figures for the other countries.

1700091841

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.700091792e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]