Roman term for \'General\'

[Kate Gilliver]

Legates seem to have been used regularly for the first time in the late Republic (though then they were just legati rather than the legati Augusti Rob mentioned); Pompey was given permission to appoint 24 legates (Plutarch, Pompey 26) to assist him in his campaign against the pirates in 67 BC; this enabled him to conduct his campaigns much faster and claim victory within a few months, but also allowed him to reward his followers and build up debts of patronage. More significantly, after his second consulship in 55 BC Pompey was awarded the province of Spain but opted not to go there in person and instead appointed two legates to govern the Spanish provinces on his behalf (Velleius Paterculus 2.48; Dio Cassius 39.39). This meant he could remain in Rome at the centre of Roman politics and influence which he must have hoped would give him the upper hand in dealing with Caesar and other political rivals. This is probably the model Augustus drew on when it came to governing ‘his’ provinces: he got to appoint the legates so senators were dependent on the emperor’s patronage if they wanted a serious provincial or military command; the emperor got to stay in Rome at the centre of things; and because they were his legates acting under his auspices, the emperor got the credit for any victories, as Marcus Crassus found out in 29 BC when he was denied the right to dedicate the spolia opima after personally killing Deldo, the king of the Bastarnae, and despoiling the body when commanding an army as legatus Augusti (Dio Cassius 51.24, and see Livy 4.20 for some rather dubious scholarship on the part of the then Octavian).

Legates did attempt to turn their armies against their imperial masters (eg: Scribonianus, Saturninus), but such occasions are extremely rare in the early imperial period and we should not underestimate the part that patronage played – at all levels – in ensuring the loyalty of the army and its commanders to the emperor.

kate