Quod uaria animaduersio procedlt in eos qui
The Necessity of Discipline
Historical examples demonstrate that military discipline and obedience are essential for the health of the state.
They do not obey their leader, and they do not know how they ought to obey; and they examine where military commands have a place, and where they do not. Yet, a variety of disciplinary measures were taken against those who didn't obey the will of their leader or the law. For some are punished in their fortune, others in their reputation, and others in their blood. Read Frontinus again, and you'll find that it's always been this way. For when the consul Aurelius Cotta ordered the cavalry to join the work because necessity compelled it, and a portion of them refused the command, he complained to the censors and ensured they were marked by the fathers; he then obtained a ruling that they could not advance in their previous rank. The tribunes of the people also brought the matter before the public, and by the consent of all, discipline was established. In Spain, Quintus Metellus Macedonicus sent five cohorts that had yielded to the enemy back to recover their position, after ordering them to make their wills and threatening that they wouldn't be received back except after victory. When the soldiers of Publius Valerius had been shamefully routed, the Senate decreed that no reinforcements should be sent to him unless the enemy had been defeated. Indeed, those legions that had refused military service during the Punic War were, by decree of the Senate, given only barley for seven years, as if they had been relegated to Sicily. Following the judgment of Appius Claudius and a Senate decree, all cavalry captured by King Pyrrhus of Epirus and later released were demoted to the infantry, while the infantry were demoted to light-armed troops; all were ordered to camp outside the rampart until each man returned with two sets of enemy spoils. That is what Frontinus says. But Pliny asserts that this was also an ancient military punishment: to order a soldier to have a vein opened and blood let out for the sake of disgrace. Although he could not find the reason for this in ancient texts, he suspects it was first done to soldiers of dull mind who were drifting from their natural state, so that it seemed less a punishment than a medical treatment; later, however, he believes it became a customary practice for many other offenses, as if all who acted against their duty were seen as less than sane. For a lighter offense, the punishment was not disgraceful, even if the rigor of military discipline meant it couldn't be overlooked. It is also widely reported that the ancient Greeks wore a ring on the finger of the left hand next to the little finger. They say the Romans also generally used rings in this way. Apion, in his Egyptian books, gives the reason for this: that in dissected and opened bodies—as was the custom, which the Greeks call anatomy—it was discovered that a very thin nerve reaches and arrives at the human heart from that one finger we mentioned. It was thought that this finger, which seemed to be connected and, as it were, joined with the sovereignty of the heart, should be decorated with such an honor. Hence, they also considered those who failed in their military duty as 'heartless' and in need of either healing or punishment. To return to Frontinus: Sempronius Asellio and many other Roman historians say Crassus possessed five of the greatest and most excellent qualities: he was the wealthiest, the noblest, the most eloquent, the most learned in the law, and the Pontifex Maximus.
Obedience Over Initiative
A commander's authority is undermined when subordinates act on their own judgment rather than following orders.
While he was holding the province of Asia during his consulship and preparing to besiege and attack Leucas, he needed a strong, tall beam to build a battering ram to smash the townspeople's walls; he wrote to Gaius Magnus, a leading man among the Athenians—allies and friends of the Roman people—asking him to send him whichever of the two evils he had seen among them was the greater. Then Gaius Magnus, having learned why he had asked for the evil, did not send the larger one as he had ordered, but instead sent the smaller one, which he considered more suitable and better adapted for making a battering ram and easier to transport. Crassus ordered him to be summoned, and when he asked why he hadn't sent the one he had ordered, he ignored the reasons and explanations the man offered, ordered his clothes to be stripped off, and had him beaten severely with rods, believing that the entire duty of a commander is undermined and dissolved if anyone responds to what he is ordered to do not with the required obedience, but with unsolicited advice. What more, I ask, would a strict abbot have required of a monk under a strict rule? He had failed in this one thing: he hadn't obeyed the command, even if what he did was perhaps more useful in practice. For just as the commands of superiors to those living in religious life should not be questioned by subjects but fulfilled, provided they do not attack the perpetual rule, so in military affairs there is no military examination of a leader's commands, unless perhaps what is ordered is found to be explicitly contrary to the safety of the state. For only a treacherous and impious soldier fails to obey in this matter. For what is more unjust or detestable than to carry out a commander's orders without the reverence of faith? Isn't it a deadly, cruel, and treacherous thing to hear someone say, "If you order me to plunge my sword into my brother's chest, my parent's throat, or the womb of my own child, I will carry it out, even with an unwilling hand"? Or, "If you order me to camp by the Tuscan Tiber, I will boldly march as a surveyor into the Hesperian fields"? You may level whatever walls you wish to the ground; a battering ram driven by these arms will scatter the stones, even if you order it to completely destroy the city that is Rome. What could be said that is more wicked, and if a Roman emperor were faithful, what should offend him more? For in that very thing, the wicked soldier tried to prove his loyalty, and by doing so, he only proved himself to be utterly unfaithful and treacherous. Great reverence is certainly owed to a leader, but only while maintaining the integrity of one's faith. Some things are so necessary that they don't wait for a command; others are so detestable that they admit no command at all. Intermediate matters, which are neither necessary goods nor detestable evils, consist in the discretion of the one in charge. Whether a leader wills it or not, God must be loved out of the necessity of the good.
The Bounds of Submission
Subordinates must remain blind to their own judgment in indifferent matters, deferring entirely to the authority of their leaders.
Whether the leader wants it or not, adultery must be avoided out of the malice of iniquity. However, whether to serve in the military, whether to go out on a mission, and other matters that philosophers consider indifferent, all depend on the diligence and reverence of the person in charge. In these matters, it is considered a crime if someone fails to open their eyes at the command of their superior, or if they irreverently reach out to claim the results of any work based solely on their own judgment. Let the subordinate be blind in this regard so that they may live; for on the day they rashly reach out, as if by their own discretion, toward the tree of knowledge—which the Lord reserves for Himself and for those in authority—they fall into the snare of death. Subordinates are not permitted to judge what is good or evil in such matters, provided they show full reverence and faithful obedience to the commands of those in charge. Therefore, a soldier is not permitted to attempt anything at all in matters pertaining to the public state unless it is authorized by the order or permission of the leader, who has decided what must be done. Hence, those who often engage the enemy while ignoring or failing to wait for the leader's command—even if they bring victory to the state—often earn not so much glory from the victory as they do punishment for their rashness or negligence. What, then, will a deserter or someone who abandons their post deserve, if even a victor is punished with such severity under military discipline?
The Severity of Justice
Rigorous punishment for disobedience, even when success is achieved, serves to preserve the integrity of the military and the state.
In Julius's Strategemata, it's recorded that Clearchus, the Spartan general, said that an army should fear its own commander more than the enemy, because those who feared the uncertain death of battle faced a certain execution if they abandoned their post. Lucius Papilius Cursor demanded that Fabius Rutilius, his master of horse, be beaten with rods and executed with an axe because he had fought against his orders, even though he had been successful; he would not yield to the arguments or pleas of the soldiers, and he pursued him as he fled to Rome, nor did he relax the threat of execution there until Fabius and his father fell at his knees and the senate and the people together begged for mercy. And so you don't think he did this out of previous hatred, Mallius—who was later given the surname Imperiosus—had his own son beaten with rods and executed with an axe for fighting the enemy against his father's orders, even though he had been victorious in the sight of the army. Military discipline was not only essential for the state, but held in such high regard that when Manlius's son tried to incite the army to mutiny against his father on his own behalf, he declared that no one was worth the destruction of military discipline, and he succeeded in having himself punished. Appius Claudius had every tenth soldier who had abandoned his post chosen by lot and beaten with a club. The consul Fabius Rutilius had twenty men chosen by lot from two legions that had abandoned their post and executed them in the sight of the soldiers. The same man condemned to death three soldiers from each of the centuries whose lines had been broken through by the enemy. Quintus Fabius Maximus cut off the right hands of deserters. Marcus Cato recorded that soldiers caught stealing from their comrades had their right hands cut off, or, if the authorities chose to be more lenient, they were put to death. Mutiny also invites the sword, though in a way that restores the security and peace of the state through the punishment of a few, at the commander's discretion. It's said that when a mutiny broke out, Julius Caesar quelled the camp by executing a few, thereby restoring the soldiers' loyalty.
Read the original Latin
duci non obtemperant, et quatenua deheat obedlH; et in quibus mandatia locum habeat examinMio mUitaris, in quibus non. In eos uero qui ducis aut legis non obtemperabant arbitrio uaria animaduersio procedebat. Nam alii in fortuna, in fama alii, alii in sanguine puniuntur. Frontinum relege et usquequaque ita esse inuenies. Nam Aurelius Cotta consul, cum ad opus equites necessitate cogente iussisset accedere eorumque pars detrectasset imperium, questus apud censores effecit ut a patribus notarentur, deinde optinuit ne eis praeterita era procederent; tribuni quoque plebis de eadem re ad populum pertulerunt, omniumque consensu stabilita est disciplina. Quintus Metellus Macedonicus in Hispania quinque cohortes, quae hostibus cesserant, testamentum facere iussas ad locum recuperandum remisit, minatus non nisi post uictoriam receptum iri. Senatus, cum milites Publii Valerii turpiter fugati essent, decreuit ne ei auxilia submitterentur nisi uictis hostibus. His uero legionibus, quae Punico bello militiam detrectauerant, in Sciliciam uelut relegatis per septem annos ordeum ex Senatus consulto datum est.
Apii Claudii sententia senatusque consultum omnes qui a Pirro rege Epirotarum capti et postea remissi erant equites ad peditem redegit, pedites ad leuem armaturam, omnibus extra uallum iussis tendere donec bina hostium spolia singuli referrent. Haec Frontinus. At Plinius asserit quia fuit haec quoque antiquitus animaduersio militaris, iubere ignominiae causa miHti uenam solui et sanguinem dimitti; cuius rei rationem etsi in ueteribus literis non potuerit inuenire, hoc tamen primo factum opinatur in militibus stupentis animi et a naturali habitu declinantis ut non tam pena quam medicina uideretur, postea tamen ob pleraque alia delicta id factitatum esse credit per consuetudinem, quasi minus sani uiderentur omnes qui contra officium delinquerent. Nam leuioris culpae non erat ignominiosa animaduersio, etsi nec illa ex uigore disciplinae militaris dissimulationi locum relinqueret. Veteres quoque Grecos anulum habuisse in sinistrae manus digito qui minimo proximus est celeberrime traditur. a Romanos quoque homines aiunt sic plerumque usitatos anulis; causamque huius rei Apion in libris Egyptiacis dicit, quod in sectis apertisque corporibus, ut mos fuit, quas Greci anatomas uocant, repertum est quendam tenuissimum neruum ab eo uno digito, de quo diximus, ad cor hominis pertingere ac peruenire; uisumque esse eum potissimum digitum tali honore decorandum, qui continens et quasi connexus cum principatu cordis uideretur. Vnde et quasi excordes arbitrati sunt curandos aut puniendos qui in militare officium deliquissent. Vt redeam ad Frontinum, Crassus a Sempronio Asello et plerisque aliis historiae Romanae scriptoribus traditur habuisse quinque rerum bonarum maxima et praecipua; quod esset ditissimus, quod nobilissimus, quod eloquentissimus, quod iuris consultissimus, quod pontifex maximus.
Is, cum in consulatu optineret Asiam prouinciam et circumsidere atque oppugnare Leucas pararet opusque esset firma atque procera trabe qua arietem faceret quo muri opidanorum quaterentur, scripsit ad Magnum Gaium maiorem Atheniensium sociorum amicorumque populi Romani ut ex malis duobus, quos apud eos uiderat, uter maior esset ei mittere procuraret. Timc Magnus Gaius, comperto quamobrem malum desiderasset, non, uti iusserat, maiorem, sed quem magis esse idoneum aptioremque faciendo arieti facilioremque portatu existimabat, minorem misit. Crassus eum uocari iussit et, cum interrogasset cur non quem iusserat misisset, causis rationibusque quas dictabat spretis uestimenta dec trahi iussit uirgisque multum cecidit, corrumpi atque dissolui ratus omne officium imperantis, si quis ad id quod facere iussus est non obsequio debito sed consilio non desiderato responderit. Quid quaeso amplius in monachum artioris regulae dictasset abbas seuerus? In eo namque solo deliquerat quod non paruerat mandato, etsi forte reipsa utilius esset quod fecit. Nam sicut in religione degentibus praelatorum mandata, dum praeceptionem perpetuam non impugnant, a subiectis non oportet discuti sed impleri; sic in re militari circa mandata ducis nulla est examinatio militaris, nisi forte quod praecipitur expressim saluti rei publicae inueniatur aduersum. Nam in eo non obtemperat nisi perfidus et impius miles. Quid enim iniquius, quid detestabilius quam sine fidei reuerentia aggredi quicquid dictauerit imperator?
Nonne apud omnes uox funesta est et crudelis plenaque perfidiae: Pectore si fratris gladium iuguloque parentis condere me iubeas plenaeque in uiscera partus coniugis, inuita peragam tamen omnia dextra; castra super Tusci si ponere Tybridis undas, Esperios audax ueniam metator in agros. Tu quoscumque uoles in planum effundere muros, his aries actus disperget saxa lacertis, illa licet penitus toUi quam iusseris urbem Roma sit. Quid nequius dici potuit et unde magis deberet, si fidelis esset, Romanus imperator offendi? In eo namque sceleratus a miles fidei suae fidem facere studuit unde seipsum maxime infidelem et perfidum esse conuicit. Magna quidem reuerentia debetur duci, sed fidei religione seruata. Quaedam ita necessaria sunt ut mandatum non expectent; alia sic detestabilia ut nullum omnino mandatum admittant. Media quidem, quae neque sunt necessaria bona nec detestabilia mala, consistunt in arbitrio praesidentis. Velit nolit praefectus, ex necessitate boni diligendus est Deus.
Velit nolit praefectus,ex malitia iniquitatis est adulterium declinandum. At militare uel non militare, egredi uel non egredi, ceteraque quae philosophi indifferentia reputant, ad praepositi diligentiam et reuerentiam spectant. In his nisi mandato praesidentis oculum aperire instar criminis est, aut ex scientia sua ad cuiuscumque operis fructum manum irreuerenter extendere. Sit cecus in hac parte subiectus ut uiuat, quia quacumque die quasi ex propria discretione ad arborem scientiae, quam sibi et praelatis reseruat Dominus, temerariam manum miserit, laqueum mortis incurrit. Quid enim bonum aut malum in talibus sit non licet iudicare subiectis, dum plena reuerentia praepositis exhibeatur et fidelis obedientia mandatorum. Militem ergo in omnibus his quae ad statum publicum pertinent nicliil omnino temptare licet nisi ducis iussu uel licentia quod ipse faciendum decreuerit roboretur. Vnde hi plerumque, qui ducum contempto uel non expectato imperio congredientes cum hoste rei publicae uictoriam contulerunt, saepe non tam gloriam assecuti sunt de uictoria quam de temeritate uel negligentia penam. Quid ergo merebitur transfuga stationisue desertor, si ex disciplina militari tanta seueritate corripitur triumphator?
In Strategemmatibus lulii inuenitur Clearcum Lacedemoniorum ducem dixisse imperatorem exercitui potius timendum esse quam hostem, eo quod qui in praelio dubiam mortem timuerant, eos statione relicta certum manebat supplicium. Lucius Papilius Cursor Fabium Ruptilium magistrum equitum, quod aduersus dictum eius quamuis prospere pugnauerat, uirgis poposcit caesum securi percussurus; nec contentioni aut precibus militum concessit animaduersionem, eumque profugientem Romam persecutus est; ne ibi quidem remisso prius supplicii metu quam ad genua eius et Fabius cum patre prouolueretur et pariter senatus ac popuhis rogarent. Et ne eum credas hoc fecisse ex odio praecedenti, Mallius, cui Imperioso postea cognomen fuit, filium, quod is contra edictum patris cum hoste pugnauerat, quamuis uictorem in conspectu exercitus uirgis caesum securi percussit. Fuit autem disciplina militaris sicut rei publicae necessaria, ita et omnibus gratiosa, adeo quidem ut Mallius filius pro se aduersus patrem exercitu seditionem parante negauerit tanti esse quemquam ut propter illum comimperetur disciplina militiae et optinuit ut ipsum puniri paterentur. Apius Claudius ex iis qui loco cesserant adecimum quemque militem sorte ductum fuste percussit. Fabius Rutilius consul ex duabus legionibus, quae loco cesserant, uicenos sorte ductos in conspectu militum securi percussit. Idem ternos ex centuriis, quarum statio ab hoste perrupta erat, addixit securi. Quintus Fabius Maximus transfugarum dextras praecidit.
Marcus Cato tradidit in furto comprehensis inter commilitones dextras esse praecisas aut, si benignius in reum animaduertere uoluissent, in principis sanguinem missum. Seditio quoque securim prouocat, ita tamen ut pro arbitrio ducis in pena paucorum securitas et quies rei publicae reformetur. lulius Cesar orta seditione militum paucis percussis castra sedasse legitur et fidem militum reparasse.
Policraticus companion
Study the argument weekly; pray the tradition daily
Pair the outline with the Chosen Portion app, which serves short daily portions from the same royal devotional tradition — free on iOS.
John of Salisbury argued that rulers must keep the law of God before their eyes daily; Chosen Portion gives modern readers that same daily discipline in five minutes a morning.
- 8 weeks, one book per week, with the 3-4 key chapters flagged in each
- Discussion questions usable for a reading group from week one
- A daily 5-minute companion portion in the app alongside your weekly study