The Impact of Christianity on Roman Military Service Part II

Despite the potential polluting of an individual’s faith, it is clear that Christians served in the Roman army.[1] However, it is very difficult to gauge their numbers due to the lack of soldiers’ epitaphs from the first three centuries CE containing any indication of their Christianity.[2] Such a lack of epigraphical evidence could suggest that many Christians did not join the army.[3] However, it may instead highlight a lack of Christians across the Empire as a whole[4] or that Christians serving in the army were content ‘to remain silent during public ceremonies or clandestinely cross themselves,’[5] given that proven Christianity could be treated as a capital offence.[6] Accounts of military martyrs also provide a testament to Christians serving in the army. The proconsul Dion knew of Christians serving in the sacred bodyguard of the tetrarchs;[7]  an assertion corroborated by Aurelius Gaius, who mentions his service in Diocletian’s comitatus in his wife’s epitaph, before bidding farewell to her ‘until the resurrection.’[8] The Christian saints Bacchus and Sergius were senior members of the schola gentilium at the time of their martyrdom although the historicity of their passion is suspect.[9] 

Due to their positions with their unit, Sergius and Bacchus, as well as other Christian martyrs such as Marinus, Marcellus, Julius and Dasius, must have all served in the army for a long period of time before their deaths.[10] This flurry of willing martyrdoms could have had serious consequences for the army if large numbers of Christian soldiers had voluntarily died. The martyrdom of Maximilian perhaps shows that the idea of willing martyrdom had reached Africa, something which could have undermined the Empire’s attempts to recruit men from Christianised areas. If the Great Persecution had continued, large groups of voluntary martyrs may have appeared. However, this is purely speculative. These martyrs likely represent the minority opinion of Christians. They may even have been the object of ridicule, ‘headstrong and rash, too eager to die… [bringing] trouble on the bearers of the name’ of Christian.[11] Such voluntary martyrs brought other Christians under tighter scrutiny from the authorities and could discourage other potential Christian recruits from enlisting.

These martyrdoms not only show that killing in battle was not a problem for these Christians but also that the army was more than willing to accept Christians in its ranks. The commanders, judges and governors who dealt with these martyrs could go to lengths to change the mind of the martyrs. Achaeus, the magistrate trying Marinus, ‘granted him a stay of three hours to reconsider’[12] while the proconsul Dion remonstrated not only with Maximilian to reconsider but with Fabius Victor, Maximilian’s father to dissuade his son.[13] Dasius’ commander Bassus not only offered Dasius time to reconsider, he seems to have been willing to spare him.[14] Maximus, the judge of Julius, offered the veteran a generous bonus if he were to sacrifice and did not care if Julius believed in the sacrifice or not, so long as he carried it out [15] However, even Maximus, who understood the concept of sin, demonstrated a lack of understanding of Christian belief regarding sacrifice and iconography. Any interaction to these sacrifices and icons interfered with a Christian’s faith.

However, the Romans were not always so accommodating to Christians in the army. A devout pagan would have disliked a Christian’s avoidance of official pagan rituals and most Christian martyrs were killed for refusing to take part in such practices. In his Λόγος Άληθής, Celsus attacked the Christians for their sedition and refusal to take part in civic as well as military life. He urges them to ‘not hold aloof from the common regime. Take your place by the emperor’s side’ and suggested that ‘if all were to follow your example and abstain from politics, the affairs of the world would fall into the hands of wild and lawless barbarians.’[16] These accusations encouraged Origen and Tertullian to advocate the importance of Christian prayer to ‘vanquish all demons who stir up war’[17] and ‘for the subsistence of the Roman Empire,’[18] while both Eusebius and Tertullian reaffirmed the loyalty of Christians to the Empire.[19] Origen went further, stating that he did not oppose a war fought for a righteous cause.[20]

However, Origen and Tertullian undermined their own arguments by over-emphasising the importance of prayer and the strength of the Christian community. By suggesting that a Christian’s role during war was not to fight war but to focus more on prayer, Origen was perhaps giving credence to Celsus’ claim that Christians did not serve in the army or undertake their civic duties. Tertullian went even further. Even with his apologetic and rhetorical style, he cannot have endeared himself and his fellow Christians to the Roman authorities with claims like the Christians ‘have filled every place among you [Romans],’[21] which sounds almost like an infiltration. He even toyed with one of Rome’s greatest fears – armed revolt – when he suggested that Christians were ubiquitous enough that ‘a single night with a torch or two could achieve an ample revenge.’[22] While he did dismiss the idea of a guerrilla insurrection,[23] such seditious talk would have again brought unwanted scrutiny upon the Christian community. These arguments also show the vagueness of Christian doctrine when it came to military service, allowing an individual to make his own choices regarding whether he could serve in the army. This ambiguity gave non-Christians an avenue of attack and those responsible for recruiting could find Christians unfit for military service, limiting a potential recruiting resource.

The third century crises intensified anti-Christian feeling enough for emperors such as Decius, and Valerian to attempt to force religious uniformity across the Empire. In 303, Diocletian began the purge of Christians from the army because the presence of ‘profane persons’ at a sacrifice was thought to have inhibited its success.[24] Therefore, by the early fourth century Christians were a noticeable group within the army but their numbers could not have been ‘so substantial that their dismissal would compromise the army’s effectiveness.’[25] As the number of martyrs rose, the number of devout Christians joining the army may have dropped to minute levels.[26] However, the extent of the Great Persecution varied across the Empire. The most ardent of the persecutors, Galerius and Maximinus Daia, ruled in the east, while Constantius I, Maximian and Maxentius did not institute a widespread persecution in the west.[27]

A limited persecution in the west may suggest why Constantine thought it possible to unite his army under a Christian banner. However, ‘Christians were still a tiny minority… the Senate was and long remained a stronghold of paganism, the vast majority of the upper classes were pagans, and, what was more important, the army was pagan.’[28] Constantine’s choice of Christianity therefore appears peculiar. It would have been even more so had Christians been ‘a religious community known for a refusal to fight… or for having members who refused to enlist.’[29] Given Constantine’s pragmatism and ambitions for supreme power this is unlikely. Short of a complete conversion to Christianity, Constantine may have seen not just the favour of the Christian God in his victory over Maxentius[30] but a way to unite the Empire politically and religiously. The worship of Sol Invictus had become very popular with the army and Constantine may have identified the Christian God with this deity.[31] He may also have seen many similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, also popular with the army, including virgin birth on 25^th December.[32] These links may have led Constantine to adopt Christianity as a way of uniting all three under his banner. These links may have led Constantine to see Christianity as a way of uniting all three under his banner. As long as Constantine remained militarily successful, the pagan mindset could accommodate the Christian deity as just another member of the Roman pantheon,[33] while the introduction of a mobile church-shaped tent tended to by military chaplains into the army[34] may have encouraged Christians to enlist.

This syncretism continued throughout Constantine’s reign and beyond. Even as imperial Christianity became more defined, pagan practices and iconography could not be forcibly removed.[35] The veterans discharged after the defeat of Licinius shouted ‘The gods preserve you, Constantine Augustus,’[36] showing that even if more Christians were serving in the army, they were a long way off changing its pagan outlook. However, that pagans and Christians coexisted within the army suggests that even fervent Christian emperors such as Constantius II were pragmatic when it came to dealing with the religion of the army. The lack of backlash to Julian’s return to paganism could suggest that Christianity had yet to make major headway in the army. However, it may instead point to a ‘relative indifference to religious changes’[37] within the army and that Julian was careful not to alienate his Christian subjects.[38]

The adoption of ‘Christianity provided emperors with a further set of duties of considerable complexity.’[39] These new complexities may not have undermined recruiting directly but they could affect how efficiently manpower was used. The internal problems in Christianity such as Donatism, Arianism, and the councils called to deal with them could divert attention from more important military problems. Constantius II remained in the Balkans along with the bulk of his field army to supervise debates on Christian doctrine,[40] instead of moving east to deal with Shāpūr II's upcoming invasion of Mesopotamia. The comes Leonas and the comes et praeses Isauricae Lauricus were both at the Council of Seleucia[41] probably accompanied by military units and officers instead of being present at Amida. The first Council of Ephesus in 431 demanded the attention of the comes domesticorum, Candidanus, and his forces when an expedition to Africa was under way and the Balkans were being harassed by the Huns.[42]

The careers of men like Athanasius and John Chrysostom further highlight this new distraction for the army.[43] There are numerous other instances of military intervention in Church affairs[44] and these diversions of manpower for doctrinal issues could have put unnecessary strain on the recruiting systems by forcing the state to find more men to fill in for those involved in religious squabbles. The doctrinal disputes themselves could cause problems for recruiting, especially with regards to barbarians. While the majority of Goths had accepted Christianity, they had done so under Constantius II who was a proponent of Arian Christianity and they remained loyal to Arianism even after imperial support switched to Nicene Christianity under Theodosius.[45] This could have caused trouble as large numbers of Visigoths were used as recruits. However, it appears that pragmatism overruled religious conviction as special allowances were made for Arian Christian soldiers to worship as late as the sixth century.[46]

[1] Tertullian, Apol. 5.6; 37.4; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica (McGiffert, A.C. Translation, 2005) V.4.3-5.7 regarding Christians serving in XII Fulminata under Marcus Aurelius praying for and receiving rain and thunder to save the army; Helgeland, Daly and Burns, Christians, 31-34 dissects the evidence for the ‘Thundering Legion.’

[2] Lee, War, 178; Roger Tomlin, ‘Christianity and the Roman army’ in Samuel Lieu and Dominic Montserrat, Constantine: history, hagiography and legend, London 1998, 24, 43 n.22.

[3] Helgeland, Daly and Burns, Christians, 45.

[4] Tertullian, Apol. 37.3 who claims that there were significant numbers of Christians throughout the Empire in the late second/early third century.

[5] Oliver Stoll, ‘The religions of the armies’ in Paul Erdkamp, (ed.)  A Companion to the Roman army, Oxford 2007, 471.

[6] Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian martyrs, Oxford 1972, 240-243.

[7] Acta Maximiliani (Musurillo, H. translation, 1972) II.8.

[8] L'Année épigraphique  (1981), 777.

[9] David Woods, ‘The emperor Julian and the passion of Sergius and Bacchus’, Journal of Early Christian Studies V (1997), 335-67.

[10] Marinus was about to be promoted to centurion (Eusebius, HE VII.15); there are several manuscripts surviving for the martyrdom of Marcellus all of which are slightly different but all agree that he was already a centurion; Julius was a veteran who had served his time only to re-enlist and Dasius was well enough known and respected by his colleagues to be elected king of Saturnalia (Musurillo, Martyrs, 250-79).

[11] Tertullian, De corona militis (Quain, E.A. translation, 1959) 1.4-5.

[12] Eusebius, HE VII.15.

[13] Acta Maximiliani II.

[14] Martyrdom of Saintly Dasius (Musurillo, H. translation, 1972) 10, 9.

[15] Martyrdom of Julius the Veteran (Musurillo, H. translation, 1972) 2 – ‘If you think it a sin, let me take the blame. I am the one who is forcing you, so that you may not give the impression of having consented voluntarily.’

[16] Origen, contra Celsum (Chadwick, H. Translation, 1953) VIII.68.

[17] Origen, Celsum VIII.73.

[18] Tertullian Apol. 32.1; 30.4.

[19] Tertullian, Apol. 31.1; 37.4; the loyalty of XII Fulminata, a unit claimed to have had a number of Christians serving in it (Eusebius, HE V.5.1-6; Tertullian, Apol. 5), in the face of Avidius Cassius’ revolt in 175, for which it received the title of certa constans could be seen as Christian loyalty to Marcus Aurelius.

[20] Origen, Celsum IV.80-83; VIII.73.

[21] Tertullian, Apol. 37.4.

[22] Tertullian, Apol. 37.3.

[23] Tertullian, Apol. 37.5.

[24] Lactantius, de mortibus persecutorum (Creed, J.L. Translation, 1984) 10; Eusebius, HE VIII.8.

[25] Lee, War, 181.

[26] What constitutes devout in this case would have been the willingness of an individual to sacrifice, in that a devout Christian would have declined to do so and therefore been refused entry into the army. Some Christian recruits probably did sacrifice but whether they and others who cooperated with the authorities should still be considered Christians caused the Church centuries of controversy.

[27] Constantius Chlorus – Eusebius, Vita Constantini (Cameron, A. and Hall, S.G. Translation, 1999) I.13-17; Maxentius – Eusebius, HE VIII.14.1; Maximian probably carried out a limited persecution in Italy, Spain and Africa (Lactantius, DMP 8) but it only seems to have lasted around a year (A.H.M. Jones, Later Roman Empire 284-602, Oxford 1964, 74; Timothy Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, London 1981, 13).

[28] Jones, LRE, 81.

[29] Helgeland, Daly and Burns, Christians, 72.

[30] Eusebius, VC I.28; Lactantius, DMP 44.

[31] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, London 1967, 126

[32] Tertullian, de praescriptione hereticorum (Bindley, T.H. translation, 1914)40; de baptismo (Evans, C.E. translation, 1964) 5; Luther Martin, ‘Roman Mithraism and Christianity,’ Numen 37 (1989), 2-15; Payam Nabarz, The Mysteries of Mithras: the pagan belief that shaped the Christian world, Rochester 2005.

[33] Lee, War, 182.

[34] Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica (Hartranft, C.D. Translation, 1890) I.8.

[35] Zosimus, New History (Ridley, R.T. Translation, 1982) II.29.5.

[36] Codex Theodosianus (Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, Princeton 1952) VII.20.2[326].

[37] Arthur Nock, ‘The Roman army and the Roman religious year,’ Harvard Theological Review XLV (1952), 226; Tomlin in Lieu and Montserrat, 'Christianity;' Roger Tomlin, ‘The Legions in the Late Empire’ in Richard Brewer, (ed.) Roman fortresses and their legions, London 2000, 166.

[38] The Christian reaction to a return to paganism is hard to gauge as it was only temporary. Had Julian not died in Persia, there may well have been a Christian backlash to his rule in the long term, but to suggest any effects this might have had on recruitment would be purely speculative.

[39] Michael Whitby, ‘Emperors and armies AD235-395’ in Simon Swain and Mark Edwards, (eds.) Approaching Late Antiquity, Oxford 2006, 184.

[40] David Potter, The Roman Empire at bay AD 180-395, London 2004, 505; Valentinian I, however, stepped back from religious affairs as he saw himself as lacking the expertise (Sozomen VI.21.7).

[41] Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica (Zenos, A.C. translation, 1890) II.39.

[42] Procopius, De Bello Vandalico (Dewing, H.B. translation, Loeb Classical Library, 1916) I.3.35-36; Evagrius Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica (Whitby, M. translation, Translated Texts for Historians, 2000) II.1.

[43] Timothy Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: theology and politics in the Constantinian Empire, London 1993, 37; Socrates II.16 describes how the installation of Macedonius as bishop of Constantinople resulted in the deaths of 3,150 civilians when soldiers were forced intervene during riots; Wolfgang Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and bishops: army, church and state in the reign of Arcadius and Chrysostom, London 1990, ch.3 on Chrysostom; other occasions such as the destruction of the Serapaeum at Alexandria by Bishop Theophilius and the pagan shrines in Syria by Marcellus of Apamea during the reign of Theodosius I involved the participation of imperial troops and officers (Sozomen VII.15).

[44] Lee, War, 200-201 table 7.1.

[45] Liebeschuetz, Barbarians, 145, 148 on anti-Arian legislation.

[46] Walter Kaegi, Byzantine military unrest 471-843: an interpretation, Amsterdam 1981, 74, 85.