Rome. Th ese generals also vied with one another for power.
Th ey fought pitched battles until in 31 b.c.e. Octavian, later
Augustus Caesar (ca. 27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.), emerged victorious,
soon becoming the fi rst emperor.MILITARY CHANGE
Th e army also underwent changes during the growth of Rome
as an imperial power. Th e Punic Wars and those fought else-
where required an increase in the number of legions to 20,
along with the creation of several urban legions made up of
the old and underaged, whose duty it was to protect the city of
Rome. Over the fi nal three centuries of the republic, the num-
ber of legions would fl uctuate according to military demands;
the number appears not to have dropped below six.
At the end of the second century b.c.e. further changes
were made to the structure of the legion. Th ese changes would
remain in place until the late empire. According to tradition,
under Gaius Marius each legion was divided into 10 cohorts
rather than 30 maniples. A cohort was made up of 480 sol-
diers divided among six centuries, thus giving each legion a
complement of 4,800. When combined with a new weapon,
a long spear called a pilus, the cohort was felt to retain fl ex-
ibility in combat while increasing the strength of the Roman
force. At the beginning of battle each legionnaire threw his
pilus, the point of which was designed to bend so that it could
not be used against the Romans. A pilus was capable of pierc-
ing light armor, and if it stuck in an enemy soldier’s shield, its
weight would make the shield too cumbersome to carry.
Over time, each legion was also augmented by a body
of troops that came from various Latium and other Italian
communities. Generally, some 500 soldiers and cavalry were
draft ed from each town until each legion was accompanied
by an auxiliary, known as an ala sociorum (wing of allies),
which was of equivalent size to the legion itself. Attached to
each legion was also an elite group of allied fi ghters, the ex-
traordinarii. Mercenaries, particularly archers from Crete,
also fought with each legion. When on campaign, then, each
legion fi elded a total of between 8,000 and 10,000 troops
along with 750 to 1,250 cavalry.THE NATURE OF ROMAN WAR
Over the centuries the nature of Roman warfare itself
changed. Th e skirmishes and raids of the kingdom and the
early republic—brief aff airs at best—turned into long off en-
sive campaigns of conquest that required extended marches
or sea voyages just to reach the enemy. Once engaged, Ro-
man soldiers might have to fi ght several battles in succession.
Sometimes campaigns lasted years and involved not only bat-
tle but lengthy sieges of enemy cities and strongholds. Once
a region was conquered, it had to be occupied by permanent
garrisons. Th ese extended campaigns and occupations also
changed the character of the Roman army. By the end of the
fi rst century c.e., what had started as a seasonal, volunteer
militia made up of part-time soldiers had transformed into a
standing army with a core of career professionals.When in the second century c.e. the empire reached its
farthest extent, the nature of Roman war once more changed.
Instead of large off ensive campaigns, the army was engaged
mostly in consolidating the frontier areas that were still in
the process of becoming Roman—indeed, many never really
did— and in patrolling and defending the imperial borders.THE AMERICAS
BY MICHAEL J. O’NEAL
As communities of people migrated and spread throughout
the Americas in ancient times, they inevitably came in con-
fl ict with one another. Th e usual source of the confl ict would
have been territory and resources. As one nation encroached
on another’s territorial hunting grounds, the earlier inhabit-
ants very likely would have resisted, and confl ict would have
erupted. Th e problem for historians, as is oft en the case with
the ancient world, is the lack of any kind of documentation
for warfare. Accordingly, historians have to rely on other
tools. One such tool consists of oral legends about warfare
that were transmitted over many generations. Sometimes, ar-
chaeological fi ndings can shed light on ancient confl ict. In
South America, for example, tombs have been found with in-
scriptions, weapons, and battle dress that shed some light on
ancient warfare.NORTH AMERICA
Among the many nations of North America, confl ict was in-
evitable and probably frequent. Numerous examples could
be cited, but one that dates back to at least 1000 b.c.e. is the
confl ict between the ancient ancestors of the Lenape and
the Allegewi (the source of the name given to the Allegheny
Mountains and the Allegheny River in the eastern United
States)—though again, historians have to rely on oral tradi-
tion and archaeological fi nds. Th e Lenape, also known as
the Lenni Lenape, migrated eastward until they came to the
Mississippi River, which they called Namesi Sipu (“River of
Fish”), the source of the word Mississippi. Here they met up
with and formed a peaceful alliance with the Mengwe, who
had migrated from the north in the region around the source
of the river.
On the other side of the River of Fish were the Allegewi.
Th e Lenape sent scouts across the river to reconnoiter, and
the scouts came back with tales of giants who lived in walled
cities and appeared to be warlike. Th e Lenape had no wish to
do battle with the Allegewi, so they sent emissaries request-
ing permission to travel through Allegewi territory to points
farther east. Th e Allegewi granted permission, so the Lenape
began to cross the river in great numbers. Th e Allegewi, not
knowing that so many people would be crossing their land,
felt threatened, and they attacked, killing a large number of
Lenape. Th e Lenape, in turn, fought back and, according to
oral legend, routed the Allegewi and drove them southward.
Th e Lenape then occupied the region around the Ohio River
valley, while the Mengwe returned to the north. In time thewar and conquest: The Americas 11530895-1194_Soc&Culturev4(s-z).i1153 1153 10/10/07 2:31:16 PM