Legion against legion.

[Pict]

In the several civil wars and struggles for power the legions had gone up against one another. I seem to recall there was one such battle where the opposing sides refused to fight , however (it escapes me at the moment sorry).

I have always wondered how the commanders were able to motivate the troops to advance on "brothers in arms". Surely there must have been occassions where men on either side had served together at some time and or were related to opponents or from the same towns and villages and balked at advancing.

Was it fear of decimation or worse or did cash or other inducements spur them on. Thoughts, ladies and gentlemen?

Cheers,
Pict (Andy)

[Matthew Amt]

Huh, I don't remember that one. The 2nd Battle of Cremona started late in the afternoon and went on all night because the opposing sides were so ferociously eager to fight that they refused their commanders' orders to stop and fortify camps before going into action.

At Forum Gallorum the veteran legions were more than willing to fight each other, and apparently they fought in silence, without warcries or any unnecessary noise except the moans of the wounded and dying.

As I understand it, *keeping* legionaries from fighting was generally much harder than making them fight!

Vale,

Matthew

[Jona Lendering]

I have always wondered how the commanders were able to motivate the troops to advance on "brothers in arms".

The promise of money and opportunities to loot usually did the trick. Alexander Severus was lynched when he said that the soldiers would not have to risk their lifes. The legionaries wanted to destroy, rape, and pillage.

[Dutchhoplite]

As I understand it, *keeping* legionaries from fighting was generally much harder than making them fight!

I believe the rivalry between Roman units was quite fierce. In civil war situations this rivalry/ unit pride would lead to heavy fighting instead of unwillingness to fight.

[Theodosius the Great]

I seem to recall there was one such battle where the opposing sides refused to fight , however (it escapes me at the moment sorry).

It sounds like the would-be battle of Brundisium between Octavian and Antonius in the year 40 b.C., IIRC. The troops on both sides forced their commanders to come to peace terms. The 'second' Triumvirate was renewed and later cemented with a marriage alliance between Antonius and Octavia, the sister of Octavian.

~Theo

[Chris Legio X]

Another thought besides just either being silent killing machines (which no doubt the legions were), Or just the thought of plunder, or reward or promise of priviledges, Would have been the simple fact of being in a legion on the losing side of a battle whether fighting or not. The most famous battles were fought during the the Year 69 or the Year of the four emperors. It would be safe to assume that each legion that opposed the winning sides of the battles Of Bedriacum were not simply just let off with a Warning. I believe and will follow up in this that several legions themselves as units earned dishonoring cognomens. As rarely is documented but I would safely assume that at the end of the Year 69 when the dust was settled that the legions that had opposed Vespasian and Titus were simply let off with a warning.

[Joe_71]

At Forum Gallorum, The Second and Thirty-fifth legions came up against the Martian and Fourth legions in some pretty brutal fighting.
The interesting thing is that not long before this battle, all four legions had been training together in Illyricum in anticipation of Caesar's invasion of Parthia. All four were recalled by Antony, but once in Italy the Martian and Fourth (after having some pretty hefty money thrown at them) declared for Octavian and the senate; splitting off from the Second and Thirty-fifth to march west. The next time these legions met was as enemies.
Money played a big part, as did political ideology, though these were usually based on who could give them money as well.

I'm not sure i'd agree that the legions were in general 'silent killing machines', I know they were at Forum Gallorum, but in the confusing topography i think they just wanted to keep things simple and retain concentration; the veteran legions even told the recruits to stay out of the fighting as they would cause more harm by further confusing the situation.

[Quintius Clavus]

In Tacitus' "Histories", there is an account of a son killing his own father at the Battle of 2nd Cremona. I seem to recall (I don't have my copy handy) that the son was with Vespasian's legions and the father with Vitellius' legions.
Also, the Romans fostered rivalry and competitiveness between/among the legions.
By year 69 AD, some of the "army groups" of the Roman army resented and resisted the possibility of transfer from one area to another, especially if the new billet was considered harsh. The legions in Syria had heard rumors that Vitellius was going to move them to the Rhine and send the Rhine legions to Syria. The Rhine, of course, was considered harsh, inhospitable and downright dangerous, whereas Syria was considered a plum posting. Thus the Syrian and other eastern legions had their own personal reasons to fight for Vespasian and being willing to kill Vitellius' legions who opposed them.

[Francois]

It is not exactly the topic, but I just found in Appian's Civil War (V, 2, 23) the interesting mention of ambassadors sent by two veteran legions in order to avoid the war between Octavian and Lucius (Antony's brother) :
"Two legions of the army which had been colonised at Ancona and which had served under the elder Caesar and under Antony, hearing of the respective preparations for war, and being moved by friendship for each of them, sent ambassadors to Rome to beseech them both to come to an agreement."