Espionage is a fascinating subject that gets
lots of traction in more modern history but which often gets overlooked when it comes to
antiquity. However information warfare was just as critical to conflict in the past as it is today
and there should be no surprise that our ancestors were deeply involved in covert operations.
Today we will be exploring this missing dimension of warfare by discussing the
Speculatores - the spies of the Roman army. I've slowly been accumulating quite the library of
history books to make these documentaries however as my shelves start to overflow i found it hard to
absorb all the information I've accumulated so far let alone explore other titles on my reading list
i'm sure in your own busy life it can be tough to do all the reading you'd like to thankfully
our sponsor blinkist has a solution blinkist is an app that takes thousands of non-fiction
books and uses experts to distill them down to their most essential ideas for you to easily
digest with text or audio in just 15 minutes it's a great tool for getting up to speed on
a wide range of subjects and deciding which ones you definitely want to read in full as
an example I've recently been able to brush up on the late roman empire by listening to the
fate of Rome while walking my dog and finally had a chance to listen to a discussion on
the stoic philosophy of Marcus Aurelius while getting the groceries it's honestly been
a really helpful app that i'd highly recommend you can check it out right now by clicking
the link in the description below to get a 7 day free trial in addition the first 100
people will get 25 off a full membership enjoy In the early days, Rome’s military intelligence
operations appear to have been quite primitive. Ancient accounts tell of multiple occasions
where attacks by neighbors or invaders seem to have caught the city completely off guard,
nearly leading to its destruction. Other times we hear of how the results of battle were made known
to the Romans not by speedy messengers or signal relay but by the presence of shields floating
down the Tiber. Taken together you start to get a sense that Rome was bumbling around in the
dark, surviving each bloody encounter thanks only to its gritty determination and martial skill.
This narrative is pushed further by ancient authors like Livy who repeatedly emphasize
how early Rome was saved time and again not by some clever use of military intelligence
but by a brave hero who rose to the occasion. It makes for a simple, moralistic tale about
the idealized character of Rome. A culture that abhorred stealthy, underhanded tactics
as unbecoming of a true Roman. A culture where surprise was the accepted price for honor. Indeed
it’s this narrative which had the author Frontinus conclude that during the days of the Monarchy and
early Republic “shrewd methods of reconnoitering were still unknown to Roman leaders.” It's
easy to see why this idea has proved appealing and has resonated throughout history. But
just how much truth is there to this claim? Well for starters we should always be wary of
such simple, moralizing explanations of history. This one in particular should be raising all
kinds of red flags as it flies in the face of common sense. How on earth could
a small community possibly survive, let alone conquer the entirety of Italy
without any intelligence gathering at all. A closer inspection of our sources reveals more
nuance to this tale than its authors let on. For example we have many cases in our texts
which discuss conspiracies taking place in and around Rome involving various factions and their
agents. Here secrets are kept and unmasked in a manner which makes it clear that subterfuge
was certainly common in a political context. This overlapped with the domain of diplomacy
where we also hear of Romans commonly accusing enemy envoys of acting as spies. So clearly
they were not unaware of the intelligence game that was afoot. In fact they even got
their own hands dirty in these matters. One of the most famous incidents has to do with
the Etruscan siege of Rome in 508 BC where a youth by the name of Scaevola was sent to sneak into the
enemy camp to assassinate the king Lars Porsena. Though he failed in this mission, his bluff that
hundreds more would follow in his footsteps was enough to shake the resolve of the besiegers. In
another incident we learn of how the Consul Fabius Maximus sent his own Etruscan speaking brother
out into the field as a spy disguised as a farmer. Apparently he was not only able to
discover that the local Umbrians were friendly to the Roman cause but also
managed to bring them over as allies. We even have more specific examples of
Roman intelligence gathering operations in more traditional military settings. For instance
during the Etruscan Wars of the 3rd century BC, the Consul Aemilius Papus is made aware of the
enemy army’s presence by a flight of birds in the distant forest, sends out scouts who
discover an ambush, and promptly leads his troops to attack the force by an unexpected
direction. Another time the Consul Quintus Fabius is said to have so stealthily scouted the
opposing Samnites that he managed to catch them unarmed and completely rout them. Other forms of
deception such as feints, concealments, ambushes, and disinformation all find their place in the
playbook of early Roman military commanders. Beyond this there were undoubtedly more
examples which go unrecorded by history. Thus we have demonstrated that Rome was indeed
active in the field of military intelligence from the very beginning. However while they were not
complete neophytes in these matters they certainly lagged far behind the capabilities of their
more advanced peers across the Mediterranean. This would prove to be especially true as
Rome expanded across the Italian peninsula during the mid-Republic. Such rapid growth would
stretch the upstart power’s rudimentary logistics, communication, and intelligence gathering
operations to the breaking point. One of the greatest stress tests would come
during the Punic Wars against mighty Carthage. The north African power was well versed in the art
of military intelligence as a result of running a vast maritime empire with a robust bureaucracy, a
network of far traveling merchants, and a practice of routinely deploying military forces overseas.
This was all brought together with devastating effect by the military genius, Hannibal Barca.
At almost every turn he outwitted the Romans, infiltrating their armies with informants,
setting up a spy ring in the capital, forging official documents, and carrying out all manner of
other ploys to gain the upperhand. These allowed him to deliver an unprecedented string of defeats
against Rome that brought the city to its knees. However the Italian power would somehow endure.
In the aftermath they slowly learned to adapt to the tricks of their foe and even began to
adopt them as their own. The brilliant commander Publius Cornelius Scipio would be the greatest
embodiment of this new approach to warfare who finally proved able to stand toe to toe
with Hannibal both on and off the battlefield. Some examples include the storming of Nova
Carthago by way of a stealthy assault at low tide and the burning of enemy war camps following their
infiltration by centurions disguised as slaves. As a result of the baptism by fire that was
the Punic Wars, Roman armies emerged on the other side as some of the most effective
military forces of the ancient world. They had learned much from the experience and
in particular gained a new appreciation for the value of intelligence gathering. It is from this
point on that we see the true expansion of covert operations within the Roman army in the form
of specialized units known as the Speculatores. They would join two other units of the Roman
intelligence system which we discussed in a previous episode. To recap, the first involved
the Procursatores who acted as a close screen of patrols while the second involved the
Exploratores who acted as an outer ring of scouts. While both were invaluable in serving as the
eyes and ears of the army they were ultimately limited in both the range and depth of their
intelligence gathering. The Speculatores filled this gap by acting as a third layer that operated
far beyond these former two units as actual spies. These agents appear to have been selected
for service on the basis of their loyalty and discretion. They were likely recruited on an adhoc
basis with little in the way of standardization. Afterall spies had been a feature of Roman warfare
for quite a while and groups of Speculatores came in all sorts of shapes and sizes. It's only later
on during the imperial era that we start to hear of the formalization of this institution.
Supposedly there were 10 undercover agents attached to each legion with the individual spies
reporting up through the regular chain of command. In terms of what they did, our
sources are replete with examples. This ranges from carrying messages, engaging in
diplomacy, taking on sensitive missions, scouting, sabotaging, and spying. However there is some
academic debate about this subject as the word “speculatores” ends up being used interchangeably
in various contexts. This muddies the waters a bit and has led to confusion, for instance, about
whether the people who acted as couriers and spies were one and the same or whether these were two
distinct groups. However to get caught up in these semantics is likely a losing battle given the
irregular nature of Rome’s intelligence operation which surely varied widely from time to
time and place to place. For the purposes of this video we will focus mostly on
the role of the Speculatores as spies. So what exactly did this entail? Well, as with
most spies across the ages, it was their objective to collect information about the enemy in a
covert manner. The target in question could vary. For instance, a spy might be sent by a
commander to learn about an individual, an army, a fortification, a city, or a region.
The duration of their operation could also vary from a short term stint to a long term
embedment. Whatever the case they would attempt to perform the infiltration discreetly.
This almost always meant shedding any Roman military gear and donning some disguise. Their
appearance would be like that of a chameleon. As the situation demanded, a Speculatores
might take on the dress of a local, a merchant, a diplomat, a refugee, a deserter,
or even an enemy soldier. Thus disguised they would then begin their
intelligence gathering operation. One approach might be to indirectly learn about an enemy
force by targeting the civilian side of things. In this case, the Byzantine manual “On Strategy”
suggests that spies should live quietly among the lower classes or frequent the markets
where all kinds of people and information could be found mingling. It's here that an
agent might learn about circulating rumors, the sentiments of the population,
or the presence of nearby forces. The historian Ammianus Marcellinus records
some amazing details about these activities on the Persian frontier in the late 4th century
AD. Apparently rumors first began swirling of an upcoming invasion which was then reinforced
by confirmatory reports. The situation quickly escalated when it was discovered that a senior
Roman functionary had defected and was now supplying King Sapor the Second with information
on Rome’s defenses and military disposition. An espionage mission was then sent deep into
Mesopotamia to probe a nearby Satrap for details, take account of material stockpiling,
and observe possible invasion routes. In another incident a series of border raids was
thought to be the precursor for a larger war, prompting Rome to once again send spies to assess
the situation. They found that the Persian King was heavily committed on another frontier and
that the raids had been of a local nature only. In response the Romans sought to devise ways to
keep King Sapor bogged down on other borders so as to gain better leverage for their upcoming
peace negotiations with the eastern power. Other times a spy might directly target
a military position like a fort or camp. This might be done from the outside by observing
carefully from a safe distance or by slithering in among the camp followers. Julius Caesar’s
spies appear to have taken this approach quite regularly whilst operating in Gaul. One example
from his commentaries states the following: This, being then determined, they decamped in
the second watch with great uproar and commotion, in no definite order, under no command, each
seeking for himself the first place on the road, and hurrying to reach home, so
that they made their departure seem similar to a flight. Caesar learnt
this at once through his speculatores; fearing an ambush because he had not yet
perceived the cause of their departure, he kept the army and the cavalry in camp. At
break of day, when the information had been confirmed by the exploratores, he sent forward
his entire cavalry to delay the rearguard. [...] A more capable or bold spy might even
penetrate within the enemy ranks. Once inside, the Speculatores would
soak up as much information as possible. Everything from unit quality, to supply levels
and overall morale. Hard data might even be stolen in the form of reports or plans. Beyond this
they could also get to work undermining the enemy from the inside. This might entail
disseminating propaganda to lower morale, spreading misinformation to cause chaos, and
even conducting sabotage. However a good spy would know that the best plan would
be to lay low and play the long game rather than attempting anything too risky
which might compromise their position. One of the most common disguises of spies engaged
in this sort of penetration would have been that of a deserter. During warfare it was quite
common for soldiers or servants to switch sides for any number of reasons. Commanders were eager
to interrogate them to learn as much about the enemy as possible. Sometimes the information
was a low level dud but other times it could yield battle-winning or disaster averting levels
of information. For instance at Actium it was deserters who informed Octavian that Antony and
Cleopatra were planning to break through their lines and escape to Egypt. However trusting
such individuals could also prove perilous. A fake deserter could just as easily
plant false information or simply give up low value information in order to get
a pass and slip into the enemy ranks. The author Vegetius warns against taking
such intel at face value and suggests that experienced or trained staff
be used to verify its authenticity. As you can see, there were many potential
ways for a spy to gather their information. But how would that information then be
relayed back to their masters? The most simple method would have been for them to relay
it themselves. However doing so would obviously have been less than ideal as it meant leaving
their post and potentially getting exposed. A better method would have been to rely on
intermediaries to carry back their reports. A spy might meet up with contacts and make
use of secret signaling to identify themselves discreetly. These could have been other spies who
acted as couriers or units of Roman exploratores who operated in advance of the army. As for
the contents of their message, it may have been transmitted orally. However this had the obvious
downside of being lost in translation or subject to leaking. Better to send back information in
a written format where it could be hidden or obfuscated. Historical sources mention the use of
writing tablets with false covers, scrolls tucked away into the scabbards of daggers, and ciphers
such as the one famously employed by Caesar. Uncovering the activities of such spy networks
amidst their own ranks was of vital importance to the Romans. Ammianus mentions how he and
his commander managed to root out a deserter of gallic origin who had been working as a
mole for the Persians on the eastern frontier. Meanwhile in Spain during the Civil
Wars we hear of how Caesar’s men uncovered a group of enemy speculatores made up
of three slaves and a soldier. Often the fate of such men was a swift execution. However death
was not always the best remedy for treachery. A Roman commander could instead spare their life
in exchange for information. For example in the runup to the battle of Thapsus in 46 BC, the
Optimates had sent a pair of Gaetulians among a number of real deserters to Caesar’s camp to
find out about his plans for countering their war elephants. However when these men were discovered,
Caesar showed clemency, granting them refugee status in exchange for divulging the intentions
of their previous masters. Other times such captured spies might even be induced to defect
by a combination of carrot and stick methods, thus becoming double agents who could be sent
back to the enemy to undermine their operations. Thus we have seen the intricate game
of cat and mouse that was afoot in the field of ancient information warfare.
It's a subject that all too often gets overlooked but which we have been
excited to share with you today. A huge thanks is owed to the
Patrons for supporting the channel and to the researchers, writers and
artists who made this episode possible. Be sure to like and subscribe
for more content and as always let us know what units of history you would
like to see covered next. Thanks for watching.
